This thread is a place for careful, clear, respectful discussions of difficult topics. It is not a place for having two-fisted no-holds-barred discussions.
MBers should be able to express their opinions without attacking others personally, and be able to listen to people who disagree with them without feeling personally attacked.
Easier said than done, of course. But MuseBlog is a good place to practice trying.
Continued from version 2010.2.
First post? Hmm.. does Pokemon count? I want that new Wii game were you play as pikachu and you have adventures, or battle revolution, or Soulsilver.
I think that belongs on the video games thread. I really can’t see Pokemon developing into a sensitive subject, unless it’s discovered that whoever makes Pokemon is secretly brainwashing the younger generations.
Ooh…why not?
My cousin would attack people if they dissed his favorite pokemon.
Sorry if this is off topic, but what’s your avatar? And where did you find it?
What’s on topic, for this particular post and all its replies? I’m tempted to make Pokemon a hot topic just so that it fits here….
If you did something that would make people think Pokemon were real, that would be a hot topic.
i goggled pokemon hybrids. Really. I did.
Pie girl… come on, you should know that that doesn’t belong here! Please, take it elsewhere. That was a semitransparent first post grab.
Well, I never knew that. i thought hot topics meant popular topics!
No, not in this case. We mean topics that people tend to have strong opinions about, and that normal people would end up having extremely loud, ‘heated’ arguments about. But see the actual post for details…
Oh….
Our Tea Time discussion was about the “ethical dilemma” of the oil spill.
It’s a reasonable topic, but the article was super biased and kept bashing Obama and the administration. (You could totally tell what side it was on; it hardly insulted BP and kept blaming Obama.)
I dunno, maybe we could discuss it here unless the topic’s been thoroughly exhausted in the last thread.
“Dilemma”? It seemed to have made it’s mind up about the matter…
North Korea, What’s up with them??
TMFA:
That’s what everybody else in the world is trying to figure out. Any ideas?
I can’t say. They keep warning but then don’t do anything.
I still say that Kim Jong-il’s government will collapse by the end of september.
Not their satellite, ’cause we know how that went.
Not sure if this is considered “hot” or not, but what do you guys think about keeping wild animals in captivity? Like dolphins in the “swim with dolphins” programs? I just think it’s wrong, unless the animal can’t be released into the wild for whatever reason. But if a dolphin can’t be released, should it really be subjected to being taught tricks and sitting in shallow pools with humans all day?
Have you ever read the book The Life Of Pi? It offers an interesting perspective, basically comparing animals to humans. Humans have everything they need in one house, and they choose to confine themselves to that house. (Granted, humans leave their houses, for things like exercise and being social and such, but those things can usually pretty much be found inside an animal’s cage. Not entirely, but mostly.) Wild animals such as tigers have such large territories because they are required to. They’re not going to find good hunting grounds, a water hole, a shady secluded area to sleep in, a lookout point from which to watch their territory, and whatever else they need all in one space. To get all of that, they need a huge territory. A zoo pretty much brings all of that into much more convenient spacing.
I’m not saying this is my exact perspective, but I thought it was interesting and that it should be pointed out.
I have not read it, but I think I’ll check it out…
I don’t think I agree with that. Sure, they have everything they need. But there’s got to be more to being a tiger than eating, drinking, and sleeping. Think about what they naturally do in the wild. They walk around, they smell things, they investigate what a noise is, maybe they go and chase butterflies, they find a suitable mate, and they chase their prey. I mean, I don’t know how it feels to be a tiger, and maybe I’m bringing this into a human perspective too much, but how would you like to have all of that taken away from you? To have endless miles one moment, and the next a small enclosure? Even the largest zoo could never possibly have enough space for… pretty much any animal. Think about dolphins. (Yeah, I’m going to bring dolphins into this a lot. I did my research paper on dolphin mistreatment.) Dolphins swim 100 miles in a day. They have entire coastlines as their playgrounds. They “see” through sonar, and when there are noises bouncing off the walls of a concrete and glass enclosure, some become, I don’t know what word to use. Crazed? Insane? Depressed? There have been reports of dolphins committing suicide. That’s pretty bad. I remember a quote by Jacques Cousteau, the famous marine biologist (among many other things) talking about how sensitive they are, and how it’s horrible for them to be in a pool.
Okay, I’m done ranting. :/
But what happens when the natural habitat vanishes or is squeezed into too small a space to support the wild population? This is happening all over the planet. The oceans haze their hazards, too, not just the naturally occurring ones, but those that have resulted from development for military, industrial, commercial, and recreational uses. Which animals are better off?
In “The Tribe of Tiger: Cats and their Culture,” author Elizabeth Marshall Thomas decided that if she were a big cat in captivity she’d probably want to be in a circus (assuming humane treatment) because she would have activities to engage her mind and exercise her body. (I should point out that in the 15 or so years since that book was written, zoo practices have improved immensely in terms of providing what they call “enrichment” for their animals.) It was a point of view I hadn’t really considered at the time.
Are there any easy answers? Would we think differently about wild versus domestic humans?
I still assert that wild animals are better off, at least most of the time. I suppose it depends on the establishment they’re kept in. For example, a dolphin in an aquarium that treats it right is better off than a dolphin that lives in a heavily polluted area of ocean, or an area where dolphin hunting is popular. Conversely, a dolphin in a good area of sea has a higher quality of life than any dolphin in captivity. Often, it’s only possible to make a sound judgement on an animal-to-animal basis.
I think that most zoos train the animals and provide stimulation nowadays. I went to an aquarium this weekend and the trainer explained that they teach the sea lions tricks, and these behaviors (opening the mouth, roaring on command, rolling over, etc.) help the vet to examine the animal. Although these may stimulate the animals’ minds, it’s simply not the same as being in a natural environment.
I’m not sure what you mean by wild and domestic humans.
Gr. I changed my opinion about six times in that post, didn’t I?
THE ORCAS. GRR. Last year I went to orca camp in the San Juan islands, and I learned that most of the captive orcas were STOLEN from there and shoved in tanks that make their fins droop and are forced to to tricks and then when they kill a trainer people act like it’s the orca’s fault.
Sorry, that sounds really immature now that I’ve posted it.
No it does not. Animals matter. A lot. Without animals, we wouldn’t exist.
We are animals! And that’s not immature at all!
I completely agree. That’s why I hate places like Sea World. Most whales, including orcas and many other kinds of dolphins, are migratory by nature and need huge places to live even when they aren’t moving. Also, they are incredibly social, living in pods of at least seven. In fact, if a whale calf is lost a nearby pod will often adopt it. But these people take orcas from the wild and put two or three of them together in these puny tanks and make them do stupid tricks for food. It makes me sick.
You know what we need? An animal cruelty thread.
I’m doing a project, and did you know that they use dolphins in the millatary?
Toothless says, by the way, that he hates animal cruelty.
How is the military using dolphins necessarily indicative of animal cruelty? Or was your comment about the military using dolphins unrelated to your desire for an animal cruelty thread?
If it’s the latter, feel free to ignore the following.
Provided that animals are treated humanely, there is no reason, in my opinion, they cannot be trained and used to help humans.
Considering I don’t know anything about hte use of dolphins in the military, i cannot say whether this is in fact the case.But if the military is treating them well, treating them humanely, providing adequate care and not causing any sort of unnecessary suffering, why is this a bad thing?I’m assuming (again, I ahve no knowledge of how dolphins are being used) that they’re being used in some sort of sonar type situation, given that dolphins navigate with sonar?I googled it. According to wikipedia, dolphins are being used to find lost naval swimmers and locate underwater mines. This definitely does not seem to me to constitute animal cruelty, unless the animals are not being properly cared for (which I rather doubt is the case).In fact, it seems quite similar to the use of dogs: dogs are used to sniff out bombs, or to follow scent trails left by people, to sniff out drugs, to sniff out survivors in wreckage. This is hardly cruel treatment of animals. I won’t say none of these animals are mistreated, but I’m guessing that’s the exception, rather than the norm. In fact, I’m fairly certain there have been studies that have shown (or at least been observations, if not true studies) that many breeds of dogs are actually happier and healthier if they have some sort of job or education, and get bored and unhappy without one, developing behavioral problems.
It sounds like they get fairly well taken care of. A team of vets on watch at all times to make sure they stay healthy.
I just wanted to mention Military Dolphins. There’s a picture on Wikipedia.
I don’t support animal captivity, but dolphins are often instrumental in helping autistic people (and those with other neurological whats-its). I think if an animal can’t be released into the wild, it should be put into one of those programs.
2- I don’t see what the dilemma is. A lot of people made some really big mistakes and mucked up the planet and the lives of countless inhabitants aquatic and terrestrial for goodness knows how long. “Ethical dilemma” doesn’t quite seem to cut it. Obama’s not entirely to blame, and neither is BP, but now there is a MESS caused by greed and stupidity and there is very little we can do about it except try to rescue the seabirds and NOT DRILL UNDERWATER NEXT TIME.
The weird thing about the oil spill–no one talks about it. I mean, people talk about it, obviously, but it’s not like the earthquake in Haiti, where suddenly EVERYONE GIVE MONEY TO HAITI and there are organizations and charities and our entire school goes and does like twenty thousand fundraisers. Where are the fundraisers for the oil spill????? Who’s rescuing the wildlife? You don’t hear about people flying seabirds out of the vicinity and rescuing fish from the polluted waters… No one even mentions it.
4- I think it’s horrible. It’s not as horrible as it used to be, of course, since getting rid of the whole iron cages and a bale of straw thing, but I still think it’s wrong on principle. Sudo has a good point, ‘course, and one I recently encountered in a Gerald Durrell book, but much as I respect Sudo and Gerald Durrell, I have to disagree. It’s true, they have everything they need for basic survival, but they’re dependent on humans. If all the humans died suddenly, they’d starve. And in a crisis where people are dying left and right, the last thing people think of is “let’s go free the animals so they can run away and find their own food.” Most humans value human life above the lives of other animals. That said, even if the animals were released, who’s to say they would know what to do? If they’d been in captivity for generations, would they remember how to get their own food? Maybe. Probably depends on the animal. I don’t know. But we ought to be certain before we risk their lives like that.
Like Sudo said, we confine ourselves to one house, but we leave the house. We go on trips, we socialize with other humans, if we don’t like the house or the lifestyle we can change it. Animals in zoos are stuck. They have to hang out with the same animals. There is no change of scenery. They can’t go hunt or forage or whatever the particular species does to fill its time. Think how bored! If you were locked in your house–though you could go into your yard, to be fair–with two other people and a few toys. There was nothing to do. You could talk, but eventually you would get on each other’s nerves. You couldn’t clean–the place was cleaned for you. You couldn’t cook–they brought food to you. People gawked at you through the windows. All you could do was sit around, sleep, play with the toys and pace the yard. OK, so animals probably don’t think about things that way, and maybe they’re perfectly happy in the zoos, but since WE do think about things that way, the least we can do is treat them like we’d treat anybody else and give them a choice in the matter.
One thing that zoos and various other captive areas are good for is breeding endangered species back to non-endangerment. But, once they’ve been safely brought back from the brink of extinction, just let them go be wild again…otherwise the situation’s no better than it was before.
Just to note: at our local zoo, the tigers are all rescues from people who were breeding the animals for pets. These animals are typically inbred to the point where they have numerous health problems and shorter than normal life spans.
Another thought is that no matter how careful the zoos are, animals bred in captivity quickly begin to evolve characteristics from their wild cousins. Could those changes affect their ability to survive in the wild? Or would they be able to adapt quickly enough?
How much longer will there be places in the wild for them to go? Many species are on the verge of extinction, with zoos increasingly becoming in effect museums for creatures who will probably not exist in the wild much longer. Should we continue breeding them to keep the species alive or should we just let them die out?
4.1.1.1- In that case, humans have been bloody stupid AGAIN and maybe we should raze some cities to the ground to reclaim the habitat.
All right. I’m just being angry. But at least some agricultural areas! Like…fruit plantations. We could just not eat non-local fruit. I mean, I love oranges and stuff but I could live without. And there could be little fruit plantations for cities, and people could grow fruit in their yards. And then we could limit our paper severely, and that would create more space not being used for paper plantations.
I don’t know. Maybe I’m a bit weird in thinking that animals are just as important as humans. Maybe more, since there are so many humans and so many animal species on the brink of extinction. But they’re not the SAME as humans, we can’t make them conform to our lifestyle our subject them to our laws. We’ve just got to let them have their habitat back and leave them alone. And not freak out if someone gets eaten by a tiger or a bear or whatever. That’s just what they do.
But then, of course, there’s the flip side to the argument. If animals killing people is all right, isn’t it all right for people to kill animals? Since that’s what we do, obviously, if left to our own devices. And there we have a great big icky moral mess.
Ahh, civilization…isn’t it lovely?
Adding to the complications is the fact that many of the high profile cases of habitat loss are situated in developing countries who don’t necessarily take kindly to having outsiders tell them what they can or can’t do with their own resources — especially by outsiders who already have industry and commercial luxuries and have hunted assorted species to extinction.
Then there are the people who kill animals for ivory or folk medicines or other sorts of profiteering — even when to do so is already illegal. Some of those are managed by powerful organizations.
Some people consider the whole idea of having pets unethical. Our domestic species were once wild, after all.
Just this morning I read that 500+ penguins have washed up dead on Brazilian beaches within the past 10 days, apparently due to starvation.
Those are sort of random thoughts. I’m not advocating any particular course of action.
5.1- It’s situations like this that make me feel like maybe it would be better in the long run if EVERYONE DIED and we tried again. Or evolved into seal people or something. Not that I want to die or evolve into seal people, but I’d almost rather that than continue living in a society which eventually will be solely composed of humans and domesticated animals living in cities eating genetically modified vegetables.
Sometimes you scare me, Alice. But I have had the same feeling.
It’s so creepy Alice, I always think the same thing. Sometimes it just feels like there’s no hope for this planet. We basically go along and just kill everything that we don’t like, including humans, and then go along our merry ways and ruin the earth. Cheers.
Yes. It even shows in our languages. When the words ‘vital’ and ‘violent’ are related (both from the Latin word for life, as I recently learned), you know something is seriously wrong with our minds.
Hm. My dictionary says that violence is related to Latin “vis,” meaning strength or force. It’s not so strange. We speak of a life force, we admire forceful action, but force misapplied can turn into violence. You could say that violence is the dark side of the life force.
Good point. That makes sense. Of course, it’s also quite possible that my dictionary is simply incorrect. I’ve had it for as long as I can remember, and I’ve no idea how up-to-date it is. But vital and violence… It just seems a bit… *can’t think of the right word at the moment*, in a world a stranger to Earth could easily look at it and think that violence was vital for human survival.,,,
It’s not mistaken. “Vis” is clearly related to “vita,” the word for life. “Vital” literally means life-giving, full of life, or necessary for life. Life was the Force, back when languages were first sorting themselves out.
I think that taking animals from the wild where they are perfectly happy and cramming them into zoos only for the entertainment of humans is wrong. However, this does not mean that keeping animals in captivity is ALWAYS wrong. I think there are differences in scenarios, which really matter. A lot.
If a species IS on the brink of extinction, as in 5.1, I don’t see anything wrong with taking a few individuals and breeding them so that they can stay alive. Especially if the place in question teaches the offspring important life skills and releases them back into the wild, preferably with a radio collar or other device so that they have some idea of how successful they’re doing—if every single animal they release is dying, something should be changed. But otherwise, most of the time, the species just dies and there isn’t overly much that can be done about it, so I think it does more good than harm, in the long run.
And then there are the situations where the animals are taken from places where they were mistreated, which was also already mentioned. I’m just saying I think that’s perfectly acceptable.
And animals that are bred in captivity and raised that way need to be kept there. Keeping pets? Unethical? What do those people think we should do instead, then, turn them all loose in the woods and watch them die? Now THAT would be unethical…
Also, 5—If left to their own devices, some animals will kill some humans. If left to their own devices, humans will kill astounding numbers of animals, many of which are completely unnecessary. So I don’t think the flip side really matters as much.
I second that.
) ? If the world was as it should be(from my point of view) every life form upon it would be in equal levels of development… Humans would eat animals, animals would eat humans. We would all have to struggle a bit to survive, not to gain ground. Everyone equal. …I mean, not like…. Hmm, how to explain this… I think humans should be living with nature instead of against it.
This is barely related, but here: Humans are off the food chain. What preys upon us? What animals/insects/etc. depend on us for food(I mean, like, what animals enjoy our flesh?
Also, I think that animals should not be held in captivity, unless they are going extinct because of us. Yeah, what Bibliophile said. Also, I know of this zoo, that treats animals like they are in the wild. They don’t just feed animals, they have them hunt for it. In a enviroment that is natural for them. II think animal Cruelty and keeping animals caged for no good reason is one of the most despicably horrifyingly evil things a person can do!!!Ok, sorry, got a little mad there. Will calm down now.
…On a totally different note, I think that we should discuss the Armenian Genocide. A lot of people don’t know about it, and that makes me mad!!! And a lot of countries try to cover it up… my mom’s website got banned in China, because it had things talking about the Armenia Genocide on it. How racist, evil, and despicably foul is that?!!
That is evil indeed.
We’re pretty much apex predators at this point, but that doesn’t mean we’re off the food chain- we’re just at the top. Our dead bodies still nourish decomposers and plants (unless we’re cremated or something). We may have screwed up the cycle, but we’re still part of it.
Actually, cremation might be the most efficient way to get your elements back into circulation. The elements in an embalmed body take a while to reenter the geological and biological cycles. Cremation puts a lot of them back into the atmosphere instantly.
Yeah, embalming’s really gross. When I die, I just want to be buried. In a wooden coffin (or no coffin). In the ground. With no extra chemicals in my bloodstream or anything.
Same here. Also, I don’t want a funeral. I don’t want a bunch of people staring at me after I’m dead, that’s for sure.
There’s something I read about once I feel like you’d like–after you’ve died, there’s a place where you can just be wrapped in a very biodegradable cloth and then buried. Then they plant a tree over the grave. My mom read some article about a forest like this. It sounds like such an interesting idea, it might be my second choice for burial (my first is farther down the page)
I want to be buried there… Funerals are too expensive. And what’s a better grave marker than a tree? That’s cool.
I’ve already written a note titled “In Case I Die, Open This”, just in case (well, you never know!!) in which I’ve told my peoples that I want to be cremated and my ashes scattered in the San Francisco Bay. Which I think is the coolest thing ever. Because, I mean, dude! Fish are going to swim through me! Also, one of the atoms that previously belonged to me might touch a cell that previously belonged to Harvey Milk! (He did the same thing.) And if another whale swims up the bay and into the river, I’m going to get swum through by a whale! Which I think is pretty much the coolest thing ever. So… yeah.
Cool! I could scuba dive through you someday!
OH MY GOD I MIGHT GET SCUBA DIVED THROUGH BY KAIYVES *squees*
Oh. I totally just realized that we’re both assuming that a) I’ll die before you and b) at the age at which I die, you will be at an age at which you will be scuba diving.
On that note, if you’re not scuba diving at the age of 83 (at least), I will be forced to come back from the dead just to yell at you.
Cousteau was diving in his 80s, why wouldn’t I be?
Not just swimming through you, but probably drinking/breathing you in, so that, in a way, you become them kind of.
Hey, we were all part of each other afore the Big Bang. I am he as you are he as you are me as we are all together, y’know?
Since when did “I am the Walrus” enter into this discussion?
That’s a good idea. I mean, I’m not exactly planning on leaving this world any time soon, but like you said…you never know.
Oh, and in response to “what animals/insects/etc. depend on us for food” – mosquitoes. (Well, maybe they don’t depend on us for food, but it sure feels like it during those summers when you’ve got a hundred inflamed polka dots up and down your leg.)
I didn’t know that. I’ll have to decide where to scatter my ashes…
Ah, true.
When I die, I want to be cremated and have my ashes scattered across the globe as well. Some into the sea, some buried to be absorbed into plants, and so on. It’s as close as I’ll ever get to being able to live forever. Atoms don’t die, only shift.
If it were possible at all, I’d like to have some of my ashes scattered into space as well. It’s just so exciting. Even if that’s not possible though, well, they’ll end up there someday.
It is also interesting to wonder how many of the molecules in my body once were part of other people, and who I might share that link with. I wrote a poem about this sort of thing once…
It is possible. They did that with Gene Roddenberry’s ashes.
I personally don’t see any problem with traditional embalming and burial. The embalming ensures that you can be, er, complete for your funeral and all your friends and family and various loved ones can pay their respects to something other than a little jar of dust. Then you just lounge around underground for a while, take a little nap with the worms, catch up on all the sleep you missed when you were alive. Relaxing…
“It’s silly to be depressed by it. I mean, one thinks of it like being alive in a box. One keeps forgetting to take into account the fact that one is dead, which should make all the difference, shouldn’t it? I mean, you’d never *know* you were in a box, would you? It would be just like you were asleep in a box. Not that I’d like to sleep in a box, mind you. Not without any air. You’d wake up dead for a start, and then where would you be? In a box. That’s the bit I don’t like, frankly. That’s why I don’t think of it. Because you’d be helpless, wouldn’t you? Stuffed in a box like that. I mean, you’d be in there forever, even taking into account the fact that you’re dead. It isn’t a pleasant thought. Especially if you’re dead, really.”
~Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
9.2.1.2.2.1 (Piggy)- Yes. https://musefanpage.com/blog/?p=3245#comments comment 152 has a lot of my personal thoughts on the subject, although it’s a rough version and I later made a lot of edits.
Personally, I think I’d like the kind of burial mentioned in 9.2.1.1.2. I certainly understand why someone would want to be embalmed, and I think it’s perfectly fine, but I’d just prefer to have my body used to benefit the Earth in its decomposition. Although if it wasn’t an option to be buried that way, it would also be rather nice to be cremated and have my ashes scattered in some wonderful place, although I’ve no idea where and I’d really have to think about it for a while before actually deciding.
I would also like to reply to post 9/9.1, just because. So:
Re: Humans and the food chain: I started talking about this, but then I realized I was saying the same thing as Mikazuki, even though I hadn’t even been aware of completely agreeing beforehand. Because of this, I deleted some of it. Anyway:
Although of course we impact the food chain and, in my opinion, are, in fact, not separated from it but simply at its top, most of what we do, food-chain-wise, is negative rather than beneficial, and separates us from the rest of the world. Little preys on us at all, (although I wouldn’t suggest that so few animals/insects ‘enjoy our flesh;’ there are enough parasites in the world that do so, although admittedly that’s nearly insignificant when you consider, say, zooplankton and how absolutely crucial they are to the survival of the creatures that eat them) and we… destroy. And destroy. And then destroy more. Long ago, we did have precisely the connection to nature that I think you were referring to, but we just lost it. We were tired of the food provided by nature, and the fact that its patterns were so unlike what we’d liked to be accustomed to, that we decided we had to change the animals and plants so that they’d be more suited our purposes. Afterward, we discovered more efficient (for us) but more harmful (for the animals, the environment, eventually the economy… nearly everything, really) ways to keep them. Sadly, we hardly think we depend upon our environment at all, it seems. This is untrue. I won’t get into that now, though… Anyway, it seems that there is a strong connection between all living things, and most humans have basically forgotten it. Sadly… And it seems like it’s getting worse. As Alice said, “Society … eventually will be solely composed of humans and domesticated animals living in cities eating genetically modified vegetables.” Probably.
*surprised*
Nobody’s posted anything about the judge in California overturning Prop. 8, or in Arizona getting rid of big parts of the immigration bill yet!
*does so*
What do you think? Is the judicial system taking too much power? Do judges and juries have the right to take action on semi-political things?
About the judge in California overturning Prop 8: A lot of critters (short for criticizers/critiquers) of that are saying that it takes the power away from the people to reverse this decision, which is in itself unconstitutional. However, I’m of the opinion that in this case, whether or not some have the right to marry should not be decided by others. I don’t presume to tell straight people whether or not they can marry each other. Straight-up democracy usually leads to mob rule, which is why the Constitution is not a direct democracy. I realize that there are other venues in which the right of the people to vote is not utilized, in order to prevent this mob rule, and I believe that the decision of the right of people to marry should belong to the educated few as opposed to the possibly-uneducated many. Actually, I believe that it should belong to the consenting adults in question. But this is apparently necessarily a goal, not a means to achieve a goal.
I believe you’re looking for “critic”.
Well, whenever I see “Critics of such-and-such” in a media outlet, it’s usually (though not always) a sign that said media outlet is in favor of such-and-such. I try to use neutral language.
So making up a patronizing nickname is more neutral?
I wasn’t trying to be patronizing.
Perhaps you could just call them “people” without having to categorize them.
You’re right; something along the lines of “people criticizing and/or critiquing” would have been longer, but less odd. Sorry.
So are you arguing for the rule of the most intelligent, a Meritocracy like the Byzantine Empire? I think that a Democratic Meritocracy would be one of the better systems of government, and it would lead to increased value in education, but there’s something wrong to me about people being judged on how intelligent they are to see how many decisions they make.
No, not pure Meritocracy. I’m actually a fan of the system we have now, with some decisions being given to the people as a whole and some being given to the educated few. In my mind, decisions like who’s going to govern a certain state for the next years should be given to the people about to be governed, and decisions like whether two consenting adults should marry should be given to, well, the two consenting adults, but the next best option is probably a very well-informed, educated, carefully chosen judge. I like the idea of Meritocracy, in that the person best for the job should be given the job, but it’s very difficult to make it work out in practice.
‘Twas mentioned in the Random thread. I’m so happy, as were many others.
Does anyone disagree? *in a respectful, calm tone of voice – not like I’m about to bite your head off if you do disagree*
Dang, I meant to reply to Enc’s post. Dangflabbit newfangled technology! *waves cane around* Get off my lawn!
*ahem* …Yeah.
So, to make this have a point of some kind (and to prove my sanity), I include a link to an article that is about an interesting, though exhausted, Hot Topic.
[This link is being zapped on grounds of excessive laziness. You could at least summarize the main point or say why you think it’s worth reading, but you don’t even mention the topic. So…sorry, but Snip!. < /evilGAPAmoment>
Here’s an interesting philosophical question for everyone:
A lot of environmentalists and scientific experts nowadays say that the planet is in danger and that we need to save the planet and everything. But is the planet really on its way to destruction, or is humanity just getting screwed over and freaking out about the environmental dent we’ve left in the earth’s ridiculously long history?
Are those the only two choices?
I guess not, no.
The scientists I know don’t talk about destruction so much as disruption. They’re worried that the world is going to become a worse place for people. To them, the issue isn’t about assigning guilt or blame; it’s about preventing foreseeable suffering. Climate change is not exactly a philosophical question to people like the Maldives islanders, who are afraid that their whole country could disappear — or to the Russians, who hope that thawing polar ice will give them access to oil reserves at the bottom of the Arctic Sea.
Now, if you’re talking about what is good or bad for the planet as a whole, that is a job for philosophy, it seems to me. You could spend a long time debating what, if anything, that might mean.
“Is the planet on its way to destruction?” But isn’t everything in the universe on its way to destruction? Since no physical thing lasts forever, you could say that, each day, every bit of matter is just getting closer and closer to its own decay. So yes, even if we humans didn’t exist, nor did anything with the capacity to evolve into humans, the planet would still be on the journey towards its end, along with everything else.
But I do realize what you mean, and you’re missing the other option, which is that anything anyone does can actually make a difference, so as to prevent destruction. I just thought I’d point that out… Of course, there’s more to it than that; there are all sorts of other possibilities to consider–such as some of the things we do making a difference, and some just being ‘humanity just getting screwed over and freaking out about the environmental dent we’ve left in the earth’s ridiculously long history,’ which, I think, is actually probable, though of course how much worry is reasonable/necessary and how much isn’t is another thing that could be discussed for a long time. However, if you were to list them all, you’d probably need an entire thread. Don’t you think, though, that the possibility of the save-the-world people being right is at least worth mentioning?
Anyway, I’m now going to say several more things. I can’t resist the temptation to anylize every possibility I have time for in great detail before actually stating my opinion, so sorry about that. I’m starting with the assumption that you mean the entire world, and then taking it from there, because, well, anything short of the end of the world is still not, in my opinion, total destruction. After that, though, I’ll take your comment in all sorts of different directions, because this is fun.
Is the end of the world closer than it would be if it weren’t for us humans? Very likely. Are we even capable of changing that? I don’t think so. Are we, though about to bring about the end of the world any time particularly soon? As in 2012 or something? I very much doubt it. Are we, however, horribly damaging Earth to an extreme, unnecessary degree? Yes, definitely. And it is possible–and preferable, as should be obvious but seemingly isn’t to some people in the world–to try to do the best we can to keep what we have for as long as we can? Yes! Saying that the Earth’s history is ridiculously long won’t make a difference; besides, in when you compare its lifespan so far to those of certain other things floating around in the universe, it really isn’t particularly lengthy. Well, actually, I don’t know that. I’ve never looked into the average lifespan of, erm, ‘things floating around in the universe,’ so for all I know, Earth could actually be one of the oldest ever. However, I really doubt that. Anyway, besides *overuses transitions and similar words*, having a long history is something to be proud of. We need to keep it long and let it lengthen more. There’s no reason not to try to keep what we haven’t already destroyed safe and existent for as long as possible, so we should. Personally, I think we all deserve to live, don’t you?
To take this in a different direction, as previously promised, there could be some sort of man-caused disaster that nearly renders all life extinct, but doesn’t. A bit like City of Ember, but on a larger scale. ‘In the ridiculously long history of Earth,’ you could say that this is only one small, insignificant bit of time, and all life would regrow eventually, but on the other hand, it wouldn’t seem insignificant to all the people, animals, and other organisms that lost their lives, would it? And I really just don’t want to floccinocinihilipilificate (which means estimate as worthless. I really like the word…) any lives. So I think it’s important.
Its actual likelihood, of course, is an entirely different story. I’m not saying it’s at all likely to happen. I’m just saying that if it did, it would be very, very bad.
And then there are things that are much more likely. Maldives disappearing is certainly a possibility, and that would be horrible. And, for the most part (though not entirely) our fault. And that’s just one example. All sorts of things could happen, and all sorts of things do, though nothing quite so drastic yet…
I really don’t think it would kill us to try to prevent those things, and it could do a lot of good. We might as well try to protect what’s there. Why not, really? Maybe some of the precautions certain people are taking are rather extreme–alright, definitely more than a bit extreme–but better safe than sorry, in my opinion. (Reading over, it looks a bit as if I’m saying something of the lines of ‘We should do things whether or not we think they seem extreme/unnecessary’ That isn’t what I mean. I just meant to say that that doesn’t mean everything is pointless.). We certainly shouldn’t just continue to ruin everything–because we are ruining all sorts of things. We’ve harmed the earth, the said harm is increasing, and if we don’t stop it, everything will eventually be in trouble…
You make some good points, but I think I kind of botched what I meant with what I originally said, so let me try and say it a different way:
The earth is not in mortal danger from what humanity has done – humanity is. We don’t have the power to completely destroy it, because life will always find a way (Jurassic Park rip-off, I know), and we don’t have the power to completely save it from what we’ve done. But we do have the power to save ourselves and make the world a better living place.
Also, when I said “the earth’s ridiculously long history”, I was sort of speaking from the earth’s point of view. Everyone has a purpose in their lives, and I don’t want to downplay that and say that anyone or anything is worthless, but think about it – humanity has been on this planet for around a few hundred thousand years, and yet the earth has been in existence for 4 and a half billion years. That means the earth has survived 99,999 humanity-lifespans, and had a rough time of it too (the moon forming, oxygen being toxic to certain life forms for a period of time).
So I guess what I’m trying to say is that although we should definitely strive to solve some of the things humanity has done and make the Earth a better place, we probably shouldn’t worry about some sort of planetary destruction if we fail. Because our planet has proven that it can more than take care of itself.
I read about the Political Compass test on an old Hot Topics thread, so I decided to take it. I didn’t understand all the questions, and there were two questions where I had a really hard time deciding, but the answer is… *drumroll*
Economic Left/Right: -2.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.13
Huh.
Hey, I took that one too! I ended up in same square as Gandhi, unless I misremember. *must retake*
Just took it:
Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08
I took it too. I ended up around -7 and -7.
Which is odd, because it means I’m a communist libertarian. Which I guess is close to what I believe.
People should have lots of freedom, socially.When people’s brains are fully developed, they should be able to think and make descisions for themselves. However, I don’t think that an economic system that lets people do whatever they like is not a viable or justifiable system.
Economic Left/Right: 5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.56
I’ve read, though, that this test is rather biased. There’s a much more neutral one called PoliticsMatch. On that one I score:
Personal Score 48%
Economic Score 95%
Libertarian Conservative
Hm. Those results were a few months ago. I took the PoliticsMatch one again and got:
Personal Score 45%
Economic Score 88%
Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72
I’m reposting this from the Random thread, it’s about the school I go to, which you can learn about from the subsequent posts:
112.1.1
Reply
SudoRandom
in September 10th, 2010 @ 13:15
But then again, it’s not like most schools. I’m really not sure how much I can say without giving away potentially identifying information, and the GAPAs can snip or zap this post as they see fit, but it’s a school where I get to choose how to spend my day. Not like, choose what classes or whatever, but actually choose what I do minute to minute. Play foursquare, eat lunch, Apples to Apples, whatever. As long as it’s not destructive to myself, other people, or property (of others or the school, I think if I wanted to break something that was mine in a safe and contained way I could. ) Anyway, it’s a great school.
112.1.1.2
Reply
Errata
in September 10th, 2010 @ 15:31
How do you ever learn?
112.1.1.2.1
Reply
SudoRandom
in September 11th, 2010 @ 21:24
“[My school] is based on the belief that no kind of curriculum is necessary to prepare a young person for adult life. Instead, these schools emphasize learning as a natural by-product of all human activity.†Basically, people learn all the time just by being in social settings. And if you think about it, people prefer to do for a living something they like to do, and who’s going to be better at doing what they like to do than someone who has all the time they could need to do it?
112.1.1.2.1.1
Reply
Piggy
in September 11th, 2010 @ 21:55
It sounds dandy, but it doesn’t sound like it remotely prepares students for standard employment.
112.1.1.2.1.2
Reply
Beedle the Bard
in September 11th, 2010 @ 23:39
But you can’t possibly learn as much as a student in a regular high school setting, unless you really apply yourself. And the thing is, kids don’t apply themselves unless forced to. I would never make myself learn all the math that I’m learning through my course. I just wouldn’t. It’s not something that interests me remotely, but it’ll come in handy someday. If I was in your type of school, I wouldn’t study it at all. In fact, it sounds like your school just prepares you for social settings, and not intellectually. But I could be wrong, and by no means am I bashing your school. I just don’t fully understand how it works, and from your description, it works very well. Okay, enough with my rant, can we move this on to Hot Topics?
****************
I have to go now, I’ll discuss this later, but for those of you who want to know more, here’s an interview with Dan Greenberg, one of the founders of the original Sudbury school (the school model that my school uses) with Bill O’Reilly: http: //www .youtube. com/watch?v= FUl86pVLj4Q (Obviously it is a bit biased, because it’s O’Reilly, and I don’t think that Mr. Greenberg got some of his more important points in because of that, but it is helpful in my opinion.)
I haven’t watched the video, since I was on my iPod when I read your post and the video wouldn’t do much loading, but I went to the website in the descrip, and it sounds pretty interesting. But I must agree with others that there are many useful things you might not learn. I’m sure I’d spend a little time doing math at a school like that, but I certainly wouldn’t know as much about it as I do now. I guess I do see how learning can work in a school like that, and there was a nice interview transcript on the site that had some illuminating statements. I liked the thing about how discipline works. I have often wished that schools did it in a way like that…
In short, I’m not sure. I think I’d like to go to a school like yours, but the nearest one is in Illinois and I doubt my parents would let me anyway.
The Political Compass:
Economic Left/Right: -3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95
PoliticsMatch:
Personal Score 58%
Economic Score 36%
Moderate Liberal Populist
I dunno, I agree with the “title”, but I’d think that my percentages for both would be higher.
Opinions on the whole Meg Whitman scandal?
Personally, if I were the judge, I’d say to Nicky and her lawyers: “You need to do two things for me. First, you need to show when Meg Whitman found out you were an illegal alien; second, you need to prove that she did indeed keep you as an employee for years after the day she found out before firing you. And if you can’t prove either of those, then good day to you.”
Alright. Cannibalism.
“Yes, some animals are self aware (chimpanzees, for example), it’s true, but (I assume you’re a vegetarian) would you judge me the same for eating a piece of chicken as for eating another human being?”
You don’t know that all animals aren’t self-aware. You can’t know that for sure. Yes, humans are getting smarter (Or maybe dumber) and we understand more about animals…but the truth is that animals are many different species, abeit ones we’ve studied pretty closely. Humans are animals. Self-aware? Really?
And yes, I am a vegetarian, and I would not judge you for eating either. It is natural for humans to eat meat. We are not herbivores. We ARE carnivores. I’m not a vegetarian because I disaprove of eating meat. As for eating another human being, as long as you didn’t murder it and then eat it, I wouldn’t care any more than the chicken. Yeah, it would gross me out a little bit, but the chicken would…well, probably gross me out more, to tell you the truth. While I don’t think people should go around eating corpses all the time (It wouldn’t be very clean, cause they’ve been sitting in a coffin in the earth for a while, they would rot, who knows how they died, could have been some old diasese that’s very dangerous, and they’ve probably been preserved in formaldihide) , I don’t really see a reason why cannibalism is wrong. It’s kind of resourceful to use dead bodies that have already died instead of killing life.
Same as I said on the other thread: humans are animals. Whales could be smarter than us! If you like the taste of blood, flesh and organ are small differences. It’s your choice.
I wouldn’t do it. I have to wonder what I taste like, though~
According to reports from cannibals, you taste like pork.
A scientist friend of mine tells me that, to a first approximation, carnivores taste like chicken, herbivores taste like beef, and omnivores taste like pork.
You know what, Sudo, let’s just not have this argument. Please.
“We are not herbivores. We ARE carnivores.”
Aren’t humans omnivores?
We are. Our versatility is one reason for our success.
Sorry, I got the meanings mixed up.
Humans are omnivores, not carnivores. Please get your facts correct if you want your argument taken seriously.
As for meat eating: “as for eating another human being, as long as you didn’t murder it and then eat it, I wouldn’t care any more than the chicken”. Well, ignoring the grammar of that sentence that implies that you wouldn’t care about people eating people anymore than the chicken would care about people eating people (which, while perhaps a true statement, this is unlikely what you meant to imply), there are several things that are a bit off about that.
For one: When humans eat meat, rarely do we wait for an animal to die on its own and then consume it. Why, if we had a taste for human meat, would we do that in this case? If it’s all the same thing, if humans are animals (which, yes, scientifically we are), then surely it’s equally acceptable to hunt them for food, or to breed them for consumption, as is done with mass produced meat. I mean, if you want to keep humans equal to the rest of the animals in terms of suitability for food, you have to also keep them equal in terms of how they are harvested for food.
Second: Are you honestly telling me, that if tomorrow one of your parents, or siblings if you have any, were to die, be it from natural causes or a car accident, that you wouldn’t be fussed in the slightest if I were to swoop in and butcher up their dead body for my dinner? You wouldn’t find this any more disturbing, any grosser than me butchering and eating a chicken? I doubt it. If I were to eat your dead mother, I’m quite sure you would be absolutely horrified, more so than if you had a pet chicken and it died and I then ate your dead chicken.
Ignoring moral reasons that eating humans isn’t right (because it’s damned near impossible to win an argument on the basis of morals), how about your statement “it’s kind of resourceful to use dead bodies that have already died instead of killing life.” How about disease? yes, you can potentially get sick from other types of meat (or vegetables, for that instance….Salmonella infected tomatoes, anyone?), but there are many human diseases–say, blood borne pathogens, that I’ve got to believe could easily be transmitted via cannibalism. Then there are prion diseases that you can get from eating infected humans, much as cows got mad cow disease from being fed food with ground up cow brains/bone marrow/etc.
Take, for instance, kuru, a prion disease, which is a disease similar to mad cow disease in cows, and CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakobs Disease). This is found only in humans who have consumed human flesh, more specifically, the brain. essentially, it destroys your nervous system CJD mentioned above, another prion disease, can also be caused as a result of cannibalism, although this is not its only cause.
And “Sudo, let’s just not have this argument”? And whyever not?
I’m not saying that cannibalism is exactly right. (I was only saying that we should eat human organs on the Holloween thread because…well, it was Halloween.) And if you ate my mom, of course I would be disgusted. I wasn’t thinking about it on a personal scale, more as “well, humans are animals, and we eat animal meat, so why is human meat so different? Of course, humans are kin, but people murder other humans all the time…” But when you put it that way…*reorganizes brain and throws cannibalistic thoughts out the window* All meat disgusts me, so I wasn’t really thinking that human flesh would disgust be any more. Although, if people like the taste of blood and organs and flesh, and they don’t care who they are eating, that’s really their choice.
However, Sudo, you can’t base the fact that eating non-humans is right while eating humans is not on the basis that most animals are not self-aware. Are you a [Insert name of non-human here]? No. (At least, I don’t think you are.) Then you can’t be sure they aren’t self-aware. I don’t care how many scientific tests and whatever have proved they aren’t. You can’t be sure unless you are that animal, and if you are then you are obviously self-aware because you are posting. So just because that animal is “not self-aware” doesn’t make it okay to eat. You can’t be completely sure unless you are the animal. Yes, I’ve come to conclusion that cannibalism is not right, but that’s because in my opinion we should not eat our kin.
*psst* I was going to post that on the planning thread, cause having human organs did seem Halloweeny, but then Sudo said we should move the argument here, so I posted it here, and then, of course, I was wrong about it, and realized that, and then I was going to ask people to ignore my post, but by then it was a little too late…*un-psst*
Also, Luna, “the side of sanity?” I’m perfectly sane. *performs black magic, runs up a tree screaming, then jumps in a lake on Jamuary 7th* *recites the Declaration of Independence in Japanese* *Celebrates Christopher Columbus Did Not Really Discover America So Let’s Celebrate Those Who Did Day*
Sure, you can’t be sure that animals are self aware, but you can get really darn close. And pretty darn close is about as sure as you can be of anything. How do you know that everybody else isn’t really a robot with incredible AI? How do you know that all your memories aren’t false, and each second of your life is totally forgotten and reinvented as time goes on? How can you be sure you don’t have a mental defect that nobody will tell you about? Or, rather, how can you be sure that we landed on the moon, that the Kennedy Assassination wasn’t government organized, same for 9/11? You can’t, but you can look at the evidence and say “This is what we know, and this is what we almost certainly know to be true.” Our scientific tests show that some animals are self aware, and some aren’t. If you say that we can’t trust science, what can we trust? You have to start with something.
I have to say, I agree with Sudo on this point. There is nothing you can trust- even the existence of yourself is possible to be untrue.
You can feel yourself thinking, but your “thinking” could easily be the creation of a huge machine. Of course, it would mean that in some form, there existed something that was causing, which would effectively be you.
Yes, if we can’t trust science, what can we trust? Even though it’s possible it’s false, there’s nothing else to do. We might as well err on the side of caution and assume animals are self-aware.
~~~~~~~
Anyway, this is how I feel about Columbus day- it makes about as much sense as any other state-sponsored holidays. True, I might disagree with the name and what it’s celebrating, but what it does for all of us is give an us extra day of weekend. Now, you can argue for against that, but to me, any arguments about the symbolism are purpose are pointless. Things are defined by what they do, not what they’re made for or named.
Whether or not animals are self aware, you still can’t use it to prove that we should only eat animals that aren’t self aware.Are you saying is that it’s okay to eat creatures if they aren’t aware of themselves? That’s just…I really, really don’t think that’s true. At least, I think that’s what you’re saying.
And of course I don’t exist. This timespace is just an illusion to me. My existence is not confirmed, thus I might disintegrate at any moment. *Has been watching too much Noein* You can’t trust anything, true. Very true.
On Self-Awareness in Animals:
The mirror test can be used to establish whether an animal is capable of recognizing itself. A colored dot is painted on a part of the animal it cannot normally see, and then it is shown itself in a mirror. If it recognizes that the dot is on itself, the animal is self aware. Dolphins, elephants, whales, and the great apes are most notable for passing the mirror test. Other animals, like dogs, are not self-aware.
Self-awareness is not the same as the ability to feel pain though, and emotion in animals is highly debated.
Oh! This reminds me- Robert, my Anthropology teacher recently expressed her thanks for all of the people involved in Ardi’s discovery and study. She says it keeps her job interesting and her lectures fresh!
What.
I don’t really understand how that indicates self-awareness. If a dog were to assume that there was an identical dog with the same spot that just happened to be there instead of recognizing itself, that indicates that isn’t as intelligent as the ones that passed–if you interpret the word intelligent in the human way, which can be very limited at times–but I don’t see how that could possibly indicate that a dog has no consciousness at all. What’s the theory behind it? It makes no sense to me…
Actually, I recently read an article that said animals are turning out to be much more self-aware than we thought, though I’m not sure how reliable the source was. Are we possibly thinking of different definitions for the same word?
24 – I agree; I think it’s probably a bad idea to have cannibalism as a part of everyday life, but I can also see a situation where it would be the best idea.
Say you have massive crop failures. Or we run out of fossil fuels to make fertilizers, which means way less food than there used to be. Malthusian famines are really ugly things. It would be made less ugly, in some ways, and certainly would cut down on the amount of misery, if the bodies of the people who died first were eaten.
Or, on a smaller scale, look at the Donner Party. If you don’t know the story, look it up, but the point here is that many of the survivors wouldn’t have survived if they hadn’t resorted to cannibalism. If the choice comes down to dying or eating your (already-dead) family… I know which one I’d choose.
I don’t think that there’s a biological reason why we can’t eat each other, but it just doesn’t seem ethical to me.
I think there’s a disease you can get from eating human brains…
Kuru.
My bad, sorry.
Just in time for the three day weekend! Columbus Day. What do you think about it? Should Columbus be venerated for opening up new opportunities to the world, or abhorred for ruining a beautiful, pristine land?
I’m leaning towards the latter…
Columbus didn’t do all of the bad things, so he should be recognized as a great explorer.
But he did do a lot of bad things. He was the first person to enslave people from the New World- He took about 1,600 on his second voyage. And no doubt some women natives were raped by Columbus’ men. Also, natives were forced to bring a quota of gold to him every three months; if they did not, their hands were cut off. When he was made a governor in the New World, he was a cruel ruler, and his subjects were forced into Christianity. Celebrating Columbus Day and venerating Columbus is like celebrating slavery, disease, and rape.
It isn’t black and white. He did good things; he did bad things. You can’t just label him “entirely good” or “entirely bad”. You have to take his actions in context, you have to attempt to understand the full ramifications of his actions, you have to do a lot of guesswork. He’s not easily compartmentalized.
Bartolome de Las Casas is someone you might want to look up- he witnessed firsthand human rights abuses in the New World at the hands of the European imperialists, and campaigned to stop them. Admittedly, he was more concerned with whether the Indians had souls to see f the church could save them, and never concerneed himself with African slaves, but he was the first European to advocate for Natives’ rights.
The thing that annoys me about Columbus day is that it’s celebrating the beginning of genocide.
Lizzie – It’s not really celebrating Columbus. It’s more like, Well, we already put a holiday on this day, so let’s just go with it.
Everyone else – I don’t really have an opinion about Columbus. I think he was very influential, and hugely changed the course of history, but I don’t think it’s good or bad one way or another.
I don’t quite get your point? The holiday that we put on this date is called “Columbus day” – celebrating Columbus, not the idea of exploration or whatever. If it’s not celebrating Columbus, what _is_ it celebrating?
Some places celebrate some variety of Indigenous Peoples Day, which I think is more appropriate.
I suggested “Discovery Day” a while back.
A more pressing issue: why does my school not give us a three-day weekend for the aforementioned holiday?
I didn’t even realize it was approaching until I read your post.
I agree with Piggy, by the way. A lot of historical figures are that way, where there were bad things they did that would be completely inappropriate in the modern context but were seen as reasonable back then. For an example, see George Washington and slavery.
i don’t think columbus really deserves a holiday, but he’s not a totally bad dude. i always have a problem with saying he “discovered” america because there were people living here already and etc etc. if we have columbus day we should have a day in recognition of all the atrocities enacted upon native americans/first nation people throughout north, south and latin america.
which will never happen.
cannibalism: lol
i can’t give much of a better argument than luna did (applause, btw) but i would like to say that whoever you’re quoting that from (sudo?) doesn’t seem to actually remember the reasons for vegetarianism.
1) considering slaughterhouse practices unethical
and/or
2) dislike the taste of meat
and/or
3) health reasons
i’m not sure what your point is here. this just sounds like you’re playing devil’s advocate simply because you can, not because you actually have any interest in the eating of humans. i’m pretty sure you do see why cannibalism is wrong, you just want to be a contrarian. :/
Thanks.
As for quotes, are you referring to someone I quoted, or someone whom Mikazuki quoted?
i was referring to the quote from mikazuki
She’s quoting me, yes. I do know the standard reasons for becoming a vegetarian (my broyher’s been one since age two, and I’m considering it myself) but Mikazuki’s main complaint was that human’s should be treated the same as animals because for all we know, animals could be self aware. I thought my argument was reasonable based off that fact.
i dunno dude. i don’t doubt your knowledge of/experience with vegetarianism, think i misread that and i apologize for that.
but…are you saying that animals AREN’T self aware because of the perceived difference between eating a chicken and eating another person? i’m not sure what you’re actually arguing for or against, i guess. i mean for the reasons luna lays out you can see how there is a pretty big difference between eating a chicken and eating your newly dead neighbor. whether or not we are scientifically animals or not. i don’t know what thread the original conversation was on, maybe it would make more sense if i read it.
sorry if i sound belligerent but i really can’t accept that you actually don’t see the problem with cannibalism
Sudo is definitely not on the side of cannibalism. His comment, when in context on the Halloween Ball Planning thread (where the conversation started, when someone wanted to serve human meat at the party), made it clear that he was against cannibalism. I believe he mentioned that humans were self-aware, which makes eating them different than eating animals, and wanted to know if Mikazuki (who appears to honestly not see a problem with cannibalism) would really not feel any differently seeing someone eat a human than a chicken. Mikazuki seems to feel that she would, in fact, be more disturbed by watching someone eat a chicken that by watching someone eat a human.
Sudo is on the side of sanity, in this case. And using the word “sane” in the same sentence as “Sudo” is a bit scary…. (Just kidding, Sudo!)
The Native American holiday sounds like a great idea.
Re: Cannibalism – I guess I don’t really mind the idea of cannibalism in the societies that traditionally have been cannibal societies, but I wouldn’t want it to be introduced in our society or anything. Also, I only think it’s morally right if the people in question are already dead before you eat them. Like in Stranger in a Strange Land, or whatever that book is called.
Well, you wouldn’t exactly want to eat a live human. You probably wouldn’t want to eat a live chicken, either.
Like Ozzy Osbourne?lol, by already dead, I think she meant if the person hadn’t been killed for the sake of food, if they’d already died on their own, whereas with a chicken, you purposefully kill it with the intent to consume it.
Well, humans have eaten other humans who have already died on their own in the past, mostly when dying of starvation. And there were a few cannibal tribes in Africa or South America (though not nearly as many as the Victorian media would have you believe), who did kill other tribe members to eat them. And don’t forget the Donner Party.
Personally, I’m repulsed at the thought of eating another human, not for any logical reasons, just from a gut feeling. If others can come up with an argument that totally holds water for doing it, they can try it. Personally, though, I never would.
Cannibalism. I can’t think of cannibalism without thinking of a torchwood ep, “Countycide” which was massively disturbing *shudders* I don’t think anyone should be killed for the purpose of cannibalism, and I think cannibalism is sort of disrespectful to the memory of the people being eaten, as well as, of course , the myrad of health problems that it causes. However, if you are a part of the Donner party and you’re DYING and you have no other options, then, while disgusting, it’s not disrespectful.
Similarly to Cat’s Eye I would never, ever, consider eating human flesh.
Wow. I’ve sufficently grossed myself out for the day. I now need to discover HOW the topic of cannibalism was brought up…..
Holy cake. I am incredibly ashamed to say that, somehow, I didn’t think of the TW ep Countrycide even once while we were talking about cannibalism. That is….unacceptable. I must go shut my ears in the oven door and iron my hand and smash my skull against the nearest object….
I liked that eppy. Disturbing? Hells, yeah. Some great Ianto moments? Hells yeah.
But, yes, if it’s a matter of life and death, that changes pretty much everything, and while uber disgusting, I doubt I’d be able to look badly upon anyone who did it, at least provided they didn’t murder each other to eat. ((Speaking of the Donner party, i can never hear anything about them without immediately thinking of John Barrowman, because according to his first autobio, him’n’Scott have an interest in the Donner party, and once drove the route, ran out of gas in a totally deserted area, and thought they were going to have to resort to eating each other–no, not like that. Minds out of the gutter, please. I’m sure the story was greatly embellished, as I suspect many of the anecdotes in his autobio are, but they’re still a very entertaining read….))
Oh, as for how the topic was brought up, it was when someone suggested that human meat be served at the MA Halloween Ball.
Who suggested that?!
Oh. Enc. Of course.
Well, Randomosity did say that we should have candy body parts, but it was Enc who considered using real ones…
Columbus Day: Well, we can all celebrate Canadian Thanksgiving today instead!
OK. I was reading an article in the NYT about how freshmen in this year’s college class were more dependent on their parents and how this is a problem yadda yadda yadda. It touched off some things that had been discussed in my class today. Then I started thinking (uh oh) about culture and my own month old college experience and I realized my feelings on this topic were pretty complicated. I have some ideas on what I think but there’s a lot of ambivalence there. So I’m asking MBers what they think, particularly the GAPAs (being from another generation) and other MBers in college. Or anyone, really.
So. Do you think today’s young adults are more dependent on their parents? And if so, is it a bad thing?
I have very limited perspective. From what I’ve heard (I think I’ve read the same article, did it run weeks ago?), mainly anecdotally, parents are more protective of their children nowadays. I think this -generally- does more harm than good.
The college application process should of course be considered separately from life at college. Apps now are by far more competitive and edited by parents. From personal experience however, life at college and parental involvement is mainly dependent on physical proximity. I’m located closer to my parents than my friends, so I see them more, and probably get more help. This is all very specific to me though.
Ooh, this is not a thread to read before dinner.
I believe it’s insulting to eat any other person’s body, but I think in some cases, like the Donner pass disaster, the person would rather have been insulted than have a friend starve to death. I mean, I can’t reconcile with myself the idea of eating someone else’s body, but I’d rather be put to use when I’m dead than to rot in a cemetery.
How about pet food? My cat is sweet and affectionate and loves to curl up next to me at night, but I’m pretty sure that if I were to die in my sleep, she would eat me.
Probably only if she couldn’t find anything tastier. By the time she was that hungry, you wouldn’t be very appetizing. From what I’ve heard, cats generally don’t eat carrion. Besides, a lot of cats don’t even eat what they kill; they often lose interest once their prey stops moving and isn’t fun anymore. Of course, the rules can change in extreme conditions, just as it does for humans.
She certainly seems to think I’m tasty now. Sometimes I wake up at night to find her licking the back of my hand. That doesn’t necessarily mean she considers me a potential Happy Meal, but it’s enough to make me wonder about her intentions.
Maybe you’re just salty.
So are Happy Meals (470 to 1060 milligrams of sodium).
I had several cats who would lick the salt off pretzels without showing any interest in eating the pretzel itself.
Actually, her behavior sounds more like a form of communication — possibly telling you to get up and feed her in the conventional manner, or establishing her ownership. Perhaps she considers you a cat toy or a giant kitten. One of my kitties will scrub her favorite toys at length and with great enthusiasm, but she has never shown any inclination to eat them.
It’s fine with me either way. I’m perfectly content to become cat food eventually, when I no longer need myself for other purposes.
GAPA bantering!
End PoPo.
Also, can I just say that the new red spell-check lines on my computer are REALLY irritating me?
Probably so… I’ve heard that human meat doesn’t need as much salt as other kinds.
If your cat /did/ start eating you wouldn’t you be more of a Scared and a Bit Creeped Out Meal?
My cat likes to lick my eyelids… It really hurts, actually.
My cat used to gnaw and suck on my brother’s teddy bear when we were little. She would curl up next to him and begin making little sucking, licking noises. Then we would look and see that she was chewing the bear. It was strange. She also will only drink water out of the bathtub, and after she’s finished drinking, she stands in front of the drain and stares down it for about ten minutes straight. The faucet keeps dripping on her head, but she doesn’t seem to care.
Actually, my cat does have a disturbing tendency to creep up on me and gnaw on my toes when I’m sitting in a chair… hey, she’s doing it right now!
It doesn’t really hurt, but after a while she begins to slobber. Which worries me.
SFTDP: My cat just chased a gecko across the room, caught it, ate it, and then, with gecko all over her mouth, gave me this really creepy you’ll be next look… shiver.
I think I need to get out of the house. NOW.
*offers a place for Choklit Orange*
*gratefully flees house*
Actually, now me and my cat are huddling in my bedroom because a two-foot water monitor got in through the kitchen and is currently sitting on our couch.
What on earth is a water monitor? Is it some sort of lizard?
Yes. It’s a very large lizard.
rawr!
Eek.
Okay, putting this here out of pure discussion-related paranoia: Stewart and Colbert’s rally! People who went, experiences? People who saw it, reactions? Personally, I thought it was pretty cool! Will move this to main thread if needed!
Watched it on TV with my family. Sung along to “Peace Train”.
People’s opinions on the TSA “don’t touch my ****” guy?
IMO, he’s crazy for deliberately choosing the by-hand search rather than the full-body scanner and then getting mad at the TSA official for wanting to search his private parts.
Definitely. It’s ridiculous to not think that if they search you by hand, they’ll avoid your private parts. I don’t understand the objection to body scanners- they would seem to protect your dignity more than pat-downs, and they don’t define any particular body part.
I think for transpeople there would be an objection to the scanner because they would be much more likely to get clocked.
I don’t want my genitalia seen or touched by anyone. The full body scanner does not respect my privacy, neither does an invasive patdown.
Neither actually does much to keep me safer, it’s mostly for show. Also, there seem to be ridiculous connections between the TSA and the makers of the scanning machines.
Re: Body Scanners:
I personally don’t have a problem with the nudity angle. Perhaps it’s because I’m from the city where the solved to problem of a nude beach with a nude zone (there was no beach, ergo they made a zone on the shores of the Danube). I trust homeland security enough to erase that blurry picture after a while and it’s not like you can see my face anyway.
What I do worry about is the radiation. I don’t fly often enough for it to make a difference, but I doubt it’s health for people like flight personnel and others who have to fly once or twice a week because of their job. Obviously I can’t gauge the effects since no third has made a conclusive, objective and public study and I doubt one will ever be made. Yes, I’m paranoid, but I don’t trust homeland security to full respect all my rights and wouldn’t put it past them to delay an investigation into the safety since the theoretical security threshold isn’t exceeded. It also can be hazardous for people with skin cancer, which would force them to be patted down.
I draw the line at being patted down. I can live with blurry pictures but I find the patdown too invasive.
Did I also mention I have a childhood trauma of homeland security? I really appreciate that they’re keeping me from being blown up (no sarcasm in this part). On the other hand, I vividly remember the time my mother was threatened by a JFK official about some stupid argument regarding luggage locks (we usually put cable ties on our baggage after checking it, this was apparently offensive in some way and in the end, the guy just ripped open the zippers to our duffle bags with his pen while glaring us down. Friendly fellow). Or the way I constantly fretted about my father only being a green card holder and feared losing him at security and he was, of course, always treated differently.
Maybe it’s just that bad experience that colors everything, but I’ve often felt threatened at JFK (for example) and I’ve only had one slightly negative experience at another airport, when my sister was held up because she had pointy knitting needles in her hand luggage. Things were a little frantic at first, but I remember clearly that none of the security officers yelled at me or threatened to detain or punish any of us in any way or even raised their voice and they also explained the regulations clearly so that we could find a solution. Of course, it probably was influenced that no-one wants to be mean to a little blond girl with puppy-dog eyes who looks like she’s about to burst out into tears and that the airport wasn’t very busy that day. Still, I’d like to point out that this time we could have technically been considered guilty of an offense and were treated with much more consideration than the time we’d done nothing.
Bottom line: I really think that TSA should tone it down a little. If they were a bit less brutal about handling things, I’m sure that there’d be much less criticism of their methods. Of course, I’m sure that there are some very sensitive and dedicated members of the TSA but I’m afraid that they really should review their hiring policies.
On the TSA scanners: I have a friend who took a trip on a plane recently, after the TSA scanners were implimented. Once in the city she had traveled to, she was searching through her backpack for a map when she found a bowie knife in there that she’d forgotten to take out. Let me recap: She snuck a knife through airport security. My friend snuck a knife through airport security. She snuck a KNIFE through AIRPORT SECURITY. A good knife, too. One you could hurt people with if you tried, even though its intended purpose was carving wood.
So I figure if she can sneak a knife through airport security in her backpack, we’re either not doing enough or we’re not doing the right things. And I kind of suspect the latter.
My mom did that once… We were going to NC, and I suddenly realized, as we were waiting on line, that my mom had her Swiss army knife in her backpack. I reminded her of this, and she decided to just leave it there. And guess what? We got to NC and back to NC with that knife in her backpack, but they stopped us for a candle holder. Gotta love airport security.
That gives me great confidence in airport security. I remember, too, when I was little I would sneak things through (such as small bottles of liquid just over the amount you were supposed to have) in my socks. And then one time I showed my mom and the people got embarresed at being bested by a six year old.
I once brought a sharp pair of scissors and a swiss army knife through… at the same time. It doesn’t really restore one’s faith in the TSA, does it?
I’ve done that with a lighter – the little Bic kind. Knives, scissors, bottles of liquid, etc. – pretty much every plane trip I’ve been on, someone intentionally or unintentionally smuggled something like that onto the plane. The whole thing would be hilarious if it weren’t so annoying.
I guess it isn’t the idea of being seen so much as the invasive nature of the scan. And the TSA hasn’t been straight with us- most of the machines cannot record images, but they do have the ability to do so, and several in pilot programs did (then those images were leaked!).
As far as I know, there is no danger from radiation.
What bothers me is how useful the scanners are. Will they stop terrorism? No. They’ll probably stop hijackings, but locked doors in planes already do that. Israel has possibly a greater security issue than the US, and they don’t use scanners- they use methods which look for nervous and irregular behavior. I was stopped at Penn Station a few days ago, and for good reason- I fit the profile very well (nervous [train to catch!] young man carrying a duffel bag on the eve of a national holiday). My bag was checked and I moved on. Nothing that invaded my privacy beyond reason.
Terrorism is also not limited to planes. Had I been a suicide bomber, I probably would’ve guessed that there was security at Penn, and targeted the crowded and publicly accessible Herald Square. Lots of people had large rolling suitcases (I tripped over quite a few of them x_x ), it was crowded, and near Macy’s, a large intersection, subways, and railroads. The parade might not have happened, etc. I can’t imagine a terrorist trying to target a plane, it’d be too much work and be far less effective than targeting a public gathering. Want to shut down American commerce? What about targeting a mall on Black Friday?
So with that in mind, the TSA seems to be going too far.
But doesn’t behavior-monitoring run the risk of drifting into unjust profiling as well as, for instance, missing any terrorists that don’t look nervous?
Sure. You need a combination of both methods to be effective, but there should be some signs that are tip-offs for additional screening – one-way international flights with no baggage, for example. It’s not the only possible way that a terrorist could be operating, and not all people who fit that profile will be terrorists, but there’s probably a better chance of that person being a terrorist than a mother in her 40’s with two kids, six bags, and tickets for the flight home as well.
In addition to some security scannings, maybe including full-body scanners and pat-downs, this could be a more useful system than what we have now.
My mom was patted down when we flew to California.
I think any terrorists would be smarter than to show up with a one-way ticket and no baggage. And actually, a family in tow would be an ideal guise.
I believe that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the “underwear bomber”) traveled with no luggage and Richard Reid (the “shoe bomber”) had no luggage and paid for his one-way international plane ticket in cash.
And yes, it could be a great disguise (my brother and I were thinking that ourselves when we went through security), but if you make the practices that are currently most common more difficult, it forces potential terrorists to be smarter about how they operate and try other (maybe more difficult) methods of getting past security. This could be somewhat of a deterrent. Not saying that it’s a good thing that they keep trying to get around it, but if we’re trying to stay at least one step ahead of terrorists, I think there should be certain cues that at least suggest that additional screening should be done.
This may be a little too light-hearted for the Hot Topics thread…but did anyone hear about that guy who shot his TV after Bristol Palin advanced on Dancing with the Stars?
And by the way, Jennifer Grey ended up winning…
I’ve thrown stuffed toys at the TV, but that’s WAY extreme…
I heard that and laughed hysterically. What a crazy guy.
And more stupidity involving the Palin family:
At one point on Fox News, being interviewed by (I believe) Glenn Beck, she correctly identified North Korea as the United States’ enemy. Eight seconds later, she made a comment along the lines of “We will stand by our North Korean allies”.
XD
To be fair, her first mention of “north” primed her for the second. It’s the kind of glitch our brains are prone to. The context made it clear that she knew the difference but made a slip of the tongue.
Yes, it’s an easy mistake to laugh at, but frankly I cringe when the media, comedians, and partisans latch onto simple gaffes like this one. Blowing them out of proportion only creates sympathy among the politician’s followers and undermines the credibility of ens critics, making it even less likely that substantive criticisms will be taken seriously — and provides an excuse for retaliation in the bargain. (As if anyone waited for an excuse these days.)
Lady B’s comment seconded. It was an honest slip of the tongue, and for once it does seem mean to keep talking about it as if she doesn’t know that our allies are South Korea. It really only gives backup to all the times she’s complained (heh, I just wrote “compalined”) that the media just doesn’t like her and is biased against her.
On TSA scanners:
Honestly, with non-metal weapons and explosives, I’d be much more comfortable on a plane where I know that every person has walked through a scanner. Our country is phenominally lucky not to have had a major terrorist attack since 9/11 but it’s only a matter of time.
With the whole nudity thing: We all have bodies, our bodies are nothing to be ashamed of and it’s not like the security people are using you as porn, they’re checking to make sure you don’t blow up or otherwise kill anyone. The only reason it’s an issue is that our society still has leftover values from the puritans who settled a good deal of it, but a puritanical society ought not get in the way of national security.
Radiation—You are more at risk for overexposure to radiation when you walk by an old medical or dental clinic that doesn’t have thick enough barrier walls than you are when you get scanned.
Patdowns: I’ve been patted down as a randomized (and I mean randomized; the machine beeps every five people) scan in Heathrow Airport, and it’s not that bad at all; it’s not like they’re groping you, and it takes maybe twenty secounds. Yes, more invasive than scans, not especially pleasent but not an affront to human dignity. For finding non-metal threats it’s probably that or strip-searches that include pocket emptying, which would take WAY longer and be a lot more uncomfortable.
In closing: The TSA is not perfect, and it’s pretty easy to get stuff past them, but you know what, they’re trying, and they’re trying to protect us. I think that any way we can assist them in trying we ought to do, and if that means getting a pat down or a scan, well, it’s over quickly and it makes everyone’s day a whole lot easier if you don’t argue with the TSA officers—In fact, arguing probably means that you’re seen as a potential threat and therefore searched more throughly, not less (though no terrorist with any sense would draw attention to themselves in such a manner). I do believe that people have a right to privacy, but mostly that right to privacy is a right to conduct their lives in whatever way they chose without anyone knowing about it, not a right to refuse getting scanned going through security. If the scans make you uncomfortable, guess what, YOU DON’T NEED TO FLY. Airplane transportation is a privelage, not a right.
I wouldn’t care about getting a body scan, but I don’t want to get patted down.
It’s a lot more reasonable, in my opinion, to refuse pat-downs than scans.
By the way, anyone else hear about the person who, in order to aviod scans and pat-downs, wore a bikini to the airport? I found that moderately amusing.
Heh… did they let her through security?
Yep. No dress code for airplanes!
Yes, I did. Pretty smart person.
I don’t see what the huge deal is, to be honest. I would understand if they were complaining about airport security searching your internet history for the word “bomb,” but having your body scanned is not the worst thing that we could endure. Pat-downs, I don’t really know, but I think it’s important to remember that no one is simply feeling you up for no reason. People seem to complain about being violated, but if the procedure is followed then I would say it’s all in the name of safety. And while I disagree with the statement “If you’ve got nothing to hide…” in its wider meaning, I think it’s appropriate here. They are taking images of your body and patting you down so that we know that a plane isn’t going to explode, and you should be able to just shut out any feelings of discomfort in order to have that safety. I know, slippery-slope, slippery-slope, but I take everything by a case-to-case basis.
And furthermore, the security personnel that are doing the scans and pat-downs do so many of them that they cannot physically care that they’re looking at dark, blurry pictures of people with see-through clothing. Each of them must process hundreds of people per day. They’re just doing their job.
exactly. I agree entirely.
With all of the results that would come up for every time somebody said something cool was “Da Bomb!”, wouldn’t that be useless, anyway?
I forget to take my liquids and gels out all the time. One thing about that: so say three ounces of a liquid is not enough to make an explosive. So, you bring six three-once bottles of it and an empty Nalgene bottle. Now you have eighteen ounces of liquid in one container. TSA, why do you think this is effective?
It slows any terroristic chemists down so that, hopefully, somebody will see them unscrewing little bottles of uncertain liquid and pouring them into a larger container, all while mumbling something about hating the West.
One thing I’ve never understood is that rule-a drop of poison can still be lethal.
But you’re not going to smuggle poison on an airplane and use it to terrorize people. Sure, it’d be scary if someone just plain dropped dead on an airplane, but once you’ve done that, what more is there to do? You’ve exhausted your poison (even if you haven’t, there’s no way anybody’s eating or drinking anything the rest of the trip) and everybody will be sure to find out you poisoned the person. What the three ounce rule does is keep you from bringing on bottles of acid ot explosives, which will create a much larger effect, possibly even allowing you to hijack or crash the plane. That’s more what terrorists are after.
If you had three ounces of slow-acting poison, you could poison the water or something, and by the time people have it figured out… Plus, you might be able to poison the pilot or something. Although, I see what you mean about explosives..
I could be wrong, but I don’t think the crew eat the same food as the passengers. I think it’s stored elsewhere on the plane.
I have no idea, it was just an errant thought. It probably varies from plane to plane.
I’m not sure how you’d poison the water, either. The only water you’d have access to would be your own. And I guess also the water of the people near you.
What about the flight attendant? (If she’s bringing around a pitcher of water) You could poison the water in the pitcher when she stops at you fairly easily, I imagine, and then anyone who took water from there on would be poisoned. Not a ton of people, but it would still be enough to be terrifying. If a person was determined, I think en could definitly cause quite a few deaths. Which would be horrible, and it’d be fairly easy to get through security, if the poison was under 3 oz.
I can see the headlines now: “Blog Moderators Arrested in Aerial Poisoning Plot.”
If you had the sort of poison that could be transferred by air, you could also get it into the ventilation system somehow. Don’t ask me what kind of poisons are transferred by air, or how to get it into the ventilation system. It was just a thought.
What about biological weapons? Especially slow-acting ones, so that they would travel with the passengers for a period after they’ve left the plane–it would keep spreading.
That was my thought too, though. Yes, there are various types of poisonous gases, some of which have already been used in terrorist attacks (there was an incident on a Tokyo subway where the terrorists released a nerve gas called sarin in, I think, the 1980’s). And it would be the easiest thing to disguise it as an asthma inhaler or something. Of course, if you only had that much volume available, you’d need something pretty potent.
Cyanide is a good possibility. The stuff is pretty easy for an average person to make or obtain, and there are several ways you could release it into the the air on a plne. It might be a little tricky to smuggle enough onto a plane to kill everyone though, especially if it was a big plane.
Biological agents would be ideal, as far as being able to smuggle them on board and release them discreetly. Especially in the case of a female terrorist, she could pretend she was (messily) powdering her nose, while releasing (say) anthrax spores into the plane’s air supply. However, they’re also kind of hard to make or purchase, which means that only terrorists with the support of at least a small country would really have much access to them, and chances are good you’d end up starting a global pandemic. Which might have been your goal anyway, if you’re a terrorist, but stil…
I really hope Homeland Security doesn’t arrest me for this post…
I wouldn’t be completely certain of that, though. Just imagine if on random flights people started getting poisoned left and right? I think we’d better be prepared for any type of terrorist attack, not just what we’ve seen so far. They’re trying new things, right? Well, we’ve got to be ready for anything
I tried to bring an empty water bottle onto a plane and got caught- I think they’re on to that.
Someone should just invent a teleporter.
But then someone would bring a bomb in a teleporter and blow everyone up in atoms…
Laurence Krauss’ book “The Physics of Star Trek” explains exactly how hard that would be.
Of course, if we all used zeppelins, we could avoid the problem.
True. Of course, that could mean the risk of zeppelin-terrorism…
Has anyone considered that the point of all of this isn’t to actually find terrorists, but instead as a deterrent? It’s clearly possible to sneak dangerous objects on planes and a lot of harmless stuff is taken away, but I’m sure the security does a really good job as a deterrent. Then the important part wouldn’t be the actual efficiency or accuracy of the system, but the perceived accuracy, which is much higher in this case.
So jumping into the discussion (admittedly not having thoroughly read all the previous posts), has anybody heard the term “security theater”? Basically, it’s the idea that all these security measures make people feel safer, but in terms of finding or deterring terrorists, they don’t do much.
When the TSA adds new safety measures, they’re reacting to the last threat. The next threat isn’t going to be the same. Honestly, no matter how much they add in short of making you go on a plane naked, not letting you bring any luggage, and checking your body cavities (which I sincerely hope you’ll all agree is ridiculous), terrorists are going to come up with some way around security measures. Heck, we figured out a way to poison a good number of passengers on this thread without too much thought. Sure we’re giving them another hoop to jump through, but they’re still going to jump through it.
So should we not install new security measures? Maybe we should return security to how it was before 9/11?
The argument that “[x] is probably going to happen anyway, so we shouldn’t try to prevent [x]” doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
I highly doubt that there would be many more terrorist attacks if we, say, just had the typical medical detectors and bag scanners. No worrying about liquids, no taking off of shoes and jackets, and definitely no full body scans. What we’re doing is 1. making travel a heck of a lot more invasive and unpleasant and 2. lulling people into a false sense of security.
What about the Christmas Day Bomber? A body scan would’ve located the plastic explosives sewn into his underwear. Don’t these new procedures prevent attacks like the one he attempted to create?
Also, I don’t quite understand your point number 2. How are we lulling people into a false sense of security? In my mind, this expansion of security would seem to signify an expansion in risk. Or are you suggesting the TSA shouldn’t try to reduce fear amongst the general population?
But that defeats the point. If he had known that there would be body scans, he would have come up with something else. People know what the security screening is, and they will come up with a way to get around it. If the body scans had been in place last year, the Christmas Day Bomber would have come up with something else.
My point is that the new security measures *don’t* make us safer. They make us *think* that we’re safer, but we’re not. Now, we can argue some time whether easing the fear is a good thing (and honestly, the likelihood you will die in a terrorist attack is very low), but the body scans aren’t making us safer.
What if the “something else” that he had to come up with was harder to think of/more difficult to arrange than what he did? Isn’t that somewhat of a deterrent?
What do you think that we should do instead of the current security measures?
A normal bag scanner and metal detector would probably be enough to deter most people who think “Oh, blowing up a plane sounds like fun.” Heck, taking off jackets and shoes would even be okay with me (although once you worry about baggies for liquids, it starts getting ridiculous). The people who are really determined to blow up a plane or whatever will do so.
By the way, did anyone ever think that the point of terrorism is not to blow up planes but to scare people, and that when we freak out and institute all these crazy security procedures, they’ve succeeded?
Okay, imagine this:
normal bag scanner and metal detector – deters 95% of people
above plus taking off jackets and shoes – deters 99% of people
above plus baggies for liquids – deters 99.9% of people
above plus body scanners/pat downs – deters 99.99% of people
If the additional security measures prevent even one more terrorist attack, are they worth it? (I don’t have an answer to this.)
I think that is a lot of what terrorism is about, yes. That being said, what’s wrong with “lulling people into a false sense of security”, or, rather, making sure that people are confident in our security system and aren’t afraid to fly?
But how many terrorist attacks would there be with no security whatsoever? Honestly, I don’t think there are many people who would attack an airplane even without any security measures whatsoever. I mean, what we did pre-9/11 was pretty low key, and I don’t think there were very many terrorist attacks. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) By the way, once you get to numbers that are 99% and higher, you really have to worry about false positives and, given that terrorist attacks are pretty rare, whether it would stop anything at all. I’ll run some numbers later.
But we did have a terrorist attack, one that caused the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans. And since then, even with increased safety measures, there have been numerous attempted attacks, ones that failed due to chance rather than preparedness. I think you’re underestimating how much extremists hate America.
While the new security measures, or any security measures at all, might not deter or catch terrorist organizations with piles or resources and intelligence, it will certianally a) slow them down, potentially alowing our intelligence to find them and b) slow and deter if not stop people acting primarily on their own without plans from a larger organization (though occasionally cash) like the Portland christmas tree attempted bomber that was stopped by the FBI. There are many, many people who hate the US and US citizens to a degree that is terrifying. I believe the Portland bomber said in an email (to an undercover FBI agent) “I want no one leaving this event who isn’t dead or injured.” It’s a christmas tree lighting. We’re talking about primarily families with children. He wanted to kill children, that’s how much hate he has for the US. There are people who want to attack the US who don’t think their plans all the way through. these are the people our security can and does target. It isn’t like there are only a few of these people either. I can think of at least four attempted terrorist attacks in the last 12 months alone in the US alone. Do you really want to remove security?
Also, with pre-9/11 lack of security+lack of attacks– Pre 9/11 we didn’t have multiple large terrorist organizations out to kill us and we weren’t fighting a war that made them want to kill us even more.
So, basically, the only ways to almost completely wipe out terrorism are:
a) People must board planes naked, with no luggage, no purses, and no items of amusement, sitting on the floor in a plane with no bathroom
or
b) Everyone has their own personal hot-air balloon!
Personally, I like B.
The point isn’t to completely wipe out terrorism. I think about everyone knows that that is not going to be possible. The point is to minimize terrorism and let terrorists know that we are looking for them and we aren’t going to just let them come blow us up.
Sorry, I meant to add—I like B as well
Would explosive sniffing dogs be a suitable alternative to body scanners? They detect explosives, but without the invasion of privacy.
Also, how does the 4rth Amendment play into this? Are scans deemed reasonable?
You know, the first time I read that, I read it as something along the lines of “Exploding dogs.”
A lot of people want to feel secure, and I think technology helps with that more than dogs, even if the dogs are effective.
The dogs are also not as effective as the scans as they have to be trained to detect different bombs and with bomb technology moving rapidly we wouldn’t be able to train the dogs as fast as the terrorists can develop the bombs, particulary if we don’t know the bombs exist.
Some people have dog phobias. Some people also have phobias of people touching them or seeing them naked, but some people are also allergic to dogs. I think that bringing too many explosive-sniffing dogs into the airport is a bad idea.
confession: i clicked this as i was idly scrolling past on recent comments because i saw the word “naked”
that being said, you can get hypoallergenic dogs, and as for phobias it’s not like they’ll just be roaming around the airport. maybe give people the option, dog or pat-down
I don’t think too many people are really horribly allergic to dogs, especially if they don’t touch them. Also, airports are BIG and have good ventilation, and from what I’ve seen, these dogs are kept very clean, which would lessen the amount of allergens. The dogs are very well trained, and are kept under control. People who are insanely afraid of dogs are a very small minority, so catering to their needs would mean that airports would need to cater to a lot of other people’s needs in order to be “fair”. It doesn’t seem very reasonable to do that.
Anaphylactic Shock. Not fun, my friend.
At Auckland Airport in New Zealand, they have drug-sniffing dogs- but unlike bombs, drugs have consistent smells.
Ooh… the “like” buttons are shiny.
Cake, wrong thread! How did that happen?!
I think all the hype about the scanners and pat-downs and the like makes it all out to be worse than it is. For starters, they don’t even scan everyone. The airport I fly in and out of in my college’s state has gotten the new scanners (they just had basic metal detectors, before), but when I left for Thanksgiving Break, I didn’t get scanned or patted down–I just got sent through the metal detector and on my merry way, although they guy in front of me was scanned.
On my way back, at the Tampa airport, they had scanners, but again, I didn’t get scanned or patted down–just sent through the metal detector.
But the way the media portrays it, everyone is getting this done, no exceptions, blah blah blah. Personally? I wouldn’t have cared if I got scanned, at least in terms of a 3D virtual image of my body. Big deal. I am curious about the amount of radiation and the like–for instance, is it safe for pregnant women? I think if I were pregnant I’d opt for the pat-down, even if it is more invasive.
And I don’t even remember where i was going with this…..So yeah.
Does the fact that only some people are scanned make it more acceptable?
Er, no, I don’t think that’s where I was going with that. I don’t know. Sorry, I’m not entirely with it today.
I’m not certain they can scan or pat down kids. If someone could verify this it’d be helpful, but I read something about someone complaining about child pornography.
I’m not sure how I feel about them. If they actually make airports safer, then good. But I’m skeptical.
No, they can. I got sent through a scanner a few times at SFO.
They can scan kids but as of very recently they can no longer pat down kids. In this country, at least.
Ah. I wasn’t sure which they allowed.
I’ve only been through an airport once since they were installed.
Oh, really? They patted down some kids in our group last March when we went to Spain. They were really uncomfortable with it.
Please actually read my post before contradicting it. I said “as of very recently” very recently=this week, and “in this country” meaning they can still pat you down in spain, even as of this week. Last march was nearly a year ago, not very recently.
Sorry if any of that came across as angery or rude, that’s not the intention.
Sorry, I just interpreted the “very recently” part differently. As for the Spain part, the kids got patted down in this country while we were on our way to Spain.
I’m not a kid, though. So even if they can’t scan/pat down kids, they still could have potentially scanned/patted me down, but clearly aren’t doing all adults.
True. Many inhabitants of MuseBlog are, however. I think it’s a random thing, which also doesn’t seem to make much sense.
If I may bring up a new topic: what does everyone think of the latest Wikileaks leak–250,000 US embassy cables dating from 1966 to this year? I personally am not sure about the moral or security-related implications of it, but from an intellectual point of view I love it immensely. I can’t wait to read, a few decades from now, books about American history that are written with all of this information available. Crazy crazy crazy.
Agreed. I love that it’s all more open and honest and all that, and as a sort of self-proclaimed historian of these times, I think it’s fantastic information. Imagine: no red tape to cut through and yellow lines to jump over once we’re compiling records of the early 21st century, just straight-up information. But I am kind of worried about security, and such.
That being said, the person who leaked the information was, in all likelyhood, doing so because on some level America is becoming vaugely totallitarian in it’s information release to the public. He was an analyst. No one with the security clearence to access those files is unaware of the potential consequences of releasing them. People could die due to their release. (deteriorating relations with various nations, leading to more warfare or more terrorism. You think North Korea is just going to sit back and let us bad mouth them? Think again.)
However, due to his actions there are talks about tightening security clearance measures, shareing a lot less information between branches or different analysis and security agencies and in general in the long run making America more totallitarian, not less.
However, from an intellectual and historical point of view I am thrilled that the information is avalible, and interested from that same point of view as to the affect of their release on history.
On Airplane Security: Bruce Schneier’s blog, Schneier on Security, is an excellent read. I’d recommend it to anyone who’s interested in this debate, or just even security of all kinds (including cryptography).
Wikileaks: The latest release is beautifully terrifying. Amazing and terrifying and world changing. I thought their tweets were hyperbolic, but several thousand confidential cables from the past four years is huge. And they’ve only released 1% so far?
Morally I think I agree with the leak, it all depends on the security implications, as Piggy said. Apparently the U.S. State Dept. refused to vet the documents? Which seems to absolve WL of endangering people, but it gets ridiculously complicated after that.
And then there’s the unreleased material! They’ve got documents comparable to the Enron emails, from a major US bank. The Forbes interview is interesting.
And to top it off there’s the rape accusation against Assange, which seems fishy.
It’s an amazing story, wherever it goes.
High five on citing Schneier at approximately the same time I did! (I admit I haven’t read his blog, but I know it’s out there… My dad has been doing research in computer security, and he told me about it.)
High five!
Little Brother is a good introduction to security systems and hacking, and while it is a bit pedantic, I recommend it too. Cory Doctorow has done some other good work investigating copyright in the digital age too.
I actually found it to be quite a page-turner, but then again, computer security is a fairly typical topic of casual conversation in my house. I have a book of Doctorow’s short stories in my dorm room, I think… I guess I know what I’m reading tonight.
Not-totally-on-topic-but-interesting-nonetheless: Enron was formerly named “enteron,” which is Greek for “intestines.”
Because they hoped to divine the future?
I’m hoping not.
Because it sounded nice. Little did they know…
Anyone with any interest in security should go read Bruce Schneier’s afterword to Cory Doctorow’s book Little Brother. Really, you should all go read Little Brother. It’s a wonderful book, it’s a fast read (I started rereading it last evening and just finished and I’m not that fast a reader), and it’s in the public domain and easily accessible on the Internet. But if you don’t want to read the whole thing, just read the first afterword. Heck, read the second afterword by the Xbox hacker while you’re at it. They both bring up good points about how our security might not make us safer and how by our frantic reactions, we might be reacting exactly how the terrorists want us to react.
I think the last line there about reacting the way terrorists want us to is an extremely valid and salient point. Food for thought!
Could someone please explain to me exactly what happened with the embassy cables, in succinct and descriptive terms? I don’t understand it at all.
An Army Private with access to secure cables (how he had access is not explained) downloaded a bunch of them onto USBs-and also apparently Lady Gaga CDs-and leaked them to Wikileaks, who published them. And now a whole bunch of embarrassing diplomatic secrets are out and, paradoxically, international relations might become even more secret because now allies and not-allies alike feel like they can’t trust each other with certain secrets that are, admittedly, necessary for international negotiations. Of course they’re very Machiavellian, but politics has always worked that way.
Like Piggy, while I can understand why Wikileaks might have crossed the line spilling these secrets, the part of me that’s totally geeky for this kind of thing thinks that it’s so cool, because I would never have found out things like this otherwise.
I hope that’s clear enough for you.
Also Re: Airplane security. Yours truly can’t remember the last time she wasn’t patted down going through security. It was quick and tolerable, if somewhat annoying. (Look, some might say I’m just imagining things, but I’m convinced I always get patted down because I’m Muslim)
I have not, however, gone through the new security measures. Teh new patdown is supposedly far more invasive and takes longer. And I’m hardly fond of the scanners either. I don’t like the idea of anyone looking at me like that, even if it is in another room and they don’t see face. And I don’t think that they’ll protect us as much as everyone seems to think they will. Apart form Israeli security chiefs saying that the new technology is useless, and common sense saying that it still won’t protect us completely–it can’t sense anything hidden in body cavities, for example.
To wit: I don’t’ think that these new security actually protect us to any greater degree, but they do invade privacy to a greater degree. And there is a very real worry that all these new security measures are just going to make it harder for someone like me to board a plane. And that is my opinion on the new security.
Has anyone heard of Cryptome?
They were like Wikileaks 1.0, but without as solid of a cryptographic background, or an effective PR department. It’s interesting to examine how they’ve released many similar materials, but without gaining so much press.
Oh. Wow.
I have an acquaintance-ish friend who’s in the tenth grade- only two years older than me- and she’s pregnant. And intends to have the baby. And not give it up for adoption. And stay in school.
It scares me to think that if I were only two years older, and with poor judgement, that could be me.
There’s a girl in my grade (10th) who’s had at least one abortion. If you believe the (very possible) rumors, she’s had two. Scary.
It’s horrible to think about, isn’t it? Can you imagine going through high school pregnant?
I can’t.
*cringes*
Especially in Singapore, where decency and propriety standards are really high. People don’t even hold hands in public here.
I think there’s a girl in color guard that’s pregnant at my school. I’ve heard rumors about multiple pregnant girls. I don’t know, it’s definitely scary.
There are apparently fifteen people in the pregnant people program at school. Some senior told me. Is that a lot for a school of around 1500?
We’re around 1400 and I don’t think we have one of those programs…
You may just not see it. My high school had 1200, and they worked with surrounding districts to form a small school for young mothers. It was almost never discussed; partly because there was not much reason to, as well as the school being kept hidden in a sense to protect the students. I think there were concerns that pregnancy would become more socially accepted and therefore more common if the schools were combined.
There are 4 or 5 teachers at my school that are pregnant, its weird. Last year it was swine flu…
I dunno- on one hand, I don’t want to be especially associated with someone who makes really bad choices. On the other hand, it seems horribly cruel to ditch her, especially at the moment. I know, it’s mean of me- but seriously, it’s difficult to know what to say to a 15-year-old who enters a bar with a fake ID, gets drunk, and has sex with some random stranger. And then starts crying because she never meant for it to happen.
The people you surround yourself with will in many ways define you. Ditching her may be cruel, and cutting off all contact might be extreme, but don’t feel like you need to make sacrifices for her.
just don’t shun her. if it’s the kind of thing where people won’t look at her etc then honestly that smacks of slut shaming to me which is not okay :/ also if she got drunk there is definitely a possibility that the sex wasn’t consensual or at the very least that she was very much impaired in her decision to have it. yes it was stupid of her to make a fake id and go to a bar and think everything would be okay, but teenagers are also stupid and i really can’t imagine there’s a girl on the planet who would NOT be visibly upset by having the entire course of their life changed so abruptly.
you don’t have to be her best friend but if she says hi don’t ignore her.
Well, she was a complete and utter idiot, no question about that. That is pure idiocy right there. But just because she was a total idiot doesn’t mean that giving her a shoulder to cry on is wrong. She’s still, y’know, human. Like axa said, you don’t have to be her omg!bff4eva!, but you shouldn’t just throw her to the wolves, either. I might imagine life is hard enough right now without that.
So Assange was arrested in London on those bogus charges. And the Australian president won’t let him return to Australia, as is his legal right.
The US is trying to arrest him and bring him to the US on espionage charges. If they succeed, it won’t matter where in the world he his.
By the way, the sentence for espionage goes up to life in prison. (but the definition of “espionage” will leave lawyers arguing for the next three years minimum…)
However, if they somehow accuse him successfully of being a traitor (which I don’t think they can as he isn’t a US citizen) then the sentence can be as extreme as death, so…..
BERNIE SANDERS
Has anyone heard the song “Raise Your Glass” by Pink?
Yep. And?
It presents mindless drinking as a solution to all your problems. The target audience of pop music is teenagers. This is not okay.
Here are the lyrics, just to illustrate my point:
Right, right, turn off the lights
We’re gonna lose our minds tonight
What’s the dealio?
I love when it’s all too much
5 AM turn the radio up
Where’s the rock and roll?
Party crasher, penny snatcher
Call me up if you want gangsta
Don’t be fancy, just get dancey
Why so serious?
So raise your glass if you are wrong
In all the right ways, all my underdogs
We will never be, never be anything but loud
And nitty gritty dirty little freaks
Won’t you come on and come on and raise your glass
Slam, slam oh hot damn
What part of party don’t you understand
Wish you’d just freak out, freak out already
Can’t stop, coming in hot
I should be locked up right on the spot
It’s so on right now
So f***ing on right now
Party crasher, penny snatcher
Call me up if you want gangsta
Don’t be fancy, just get dancey
Why so serious?
So raise your glass if you are wrong
In all the right ways, all my underdogs
Won’t you come on and come on and raise your glass
Just come on and come on and raise your glass
( Spoken ) My glass is empty. That sucks!
So if you’re too school for cool
And you’re treated like a fool
You can choose to let it go
We can always, we can always party on our own
So raise your glass if you are wrong
In all the right ways, all my underdogs
We will never be never be anything but loud
And nitty gritty dirty little freaks
( GAPAs, if it’s too blog-inappropriate, please snip everything and leave the italicized part )
I’d say the lyrics illustrate my point as well, in fact especially the italicized ones. Funny the way that works, right?
What I felt listening to those lyrics was “You don’t have to be accepted, and even if you’re being picked on, you can let it go and enjoy yourself and be yourself with your friends and people similar to you, that you aren’t alone, and because your views are unpopular doesn’t mean you have to stop expressing them.”
LIKE A G6 LIKE A G6 NOW IIIII’M FEELIN SO FLY LIKE A G6
water is wet
Does it really! I know that the music video promotes animal rights, which is controversial, but hadn’t heard of it promoting underage drinking.
Which I would not say it does. “Raise your glass” seems to be a reference to toasting the counterculture lifestyle she celebrates. But I don’t see any promotion of underage drinking.
Also, is this song worse than most other music aimed at the same demographic? I’d say there’s plenty of worse stuff out there. And does it matter? How influential is a song?
Yeah, that wasn’t my impression of it either.
As for how influential a song is, I’m not sure. That depends on how many people listen to it, and how much attention they pay to the lyrics. With, given the target audience of (rather a lot of) pop music, is not much.
Having just watched Raise Your Glass, I’d say “tik tok” does a better job of presenting drinking as the solution. Raise Your Glass just seemed to basically be like “hey I’m a rebel go me.”
Yeah, once I looked up the lyrics I realized that was sort of the point of the song…a lot of pop songs DO glorify drinking, though.
Also, personally, I do not think music should be written for a target audience (I’m not saying it isn’t, I’m saying it shouldn’t be taken into consideration by the artist), and also I think censoring any music (or anything else for that matter) is wrong. If your (not you, P_M, people in general) morals don’t align with the morals presented in something else than publicly complain about it, as is your right, or just don’t expose yourself to it, as is also your right. However, making it unavailable for other people is NOT your right. You can share your views with those around you, but you cannot force your views on those around you.
Musicians shouldn’t take their audience into consideration?
(Also what is with calling them artists?)
As our dean said when he explained how to work the new gig system to us, if you call yourself an artist you can charge more.
(and what, musicians aren’t artists?)
haha, sorry, of course musicians are artists! “Artist” just as connotations with visual arts, and musicians already have their own media-specific title. But that makes sense.
(Musicians are artists. So are animators, actors, dancers, writers, and filmmakers. Visual art is only one type of art.)
I don’t think any type of art should be created for the people expected to take it in(with maybe a few exceptions, such as acting). I think that art should be true, should be created for and from the person creating it. If there is no truth (and this is very relevant to acting) it feels different, feels false, like the art is only being made because someone expects to be made, not because the artist needs it to be made.
how do you judge artistic merit if not by the approval of your audience?
besides, pop music exists to sell. that doesn’t make it any less “true,” i think in a lot of cases pop is actually some of the most honest and open musical styles, because it’s meant to ring true to a large demographic, not just one person
i guess it really depends what your intention is with the art. to me, creating art for art’s sake seems less lofty and more selfish. that’s not to say that you shouldn’t express yourself through art, because that is what art is for, but i think it’s about more than expression, it’s about communication. you want people to understand your ideas and emotions. if there’s no communication through art between the artist and the audience, then i see it as sort of pointless art
that’s not to say artists should pander to any particular audience…but an audience does have to exist.
to me, “false” art is the art that’s made without any attempt to connect to the basic human experience. that can be because the artist is too busy pandering to a certain demographic, or it can be because the artist is preoccupied with pretentious “high art” that nobody can empathize with.
Judging artistic merit by the audience’s approval is very shaky ground. A lot of the works we consider “great” and meaningful today weren’t appreciated in their own time, and often not until after the maker’s death. Take Van Gogh, for instance, as explained so well in Doctor Who. How should we judge artistic merit? I don’t know. Maybe by longevity, although that sometimes seems luck. Maybe by the thought or emotion or whatever it provokes.
There can be many different purposes for art. Communication is one of them, certainly, and a very important one, but also self-exploration and experimentation. You don’t necessarily even have to connect to the basic human experience, whatever that means – there’s been plenty of art that focuses on the mundane or the surreal. I feel like there’s really no such thing as “false” art. Bad art, yes, and art that I don’t personally like, but art is all about exploring the world around us, playing with perceptions and feelings and thoughts, and if a work does that for its maker or for someone, anyone, why should we draw arbitrary boundaries?
This is getting a bit abstract. What touched off this discussion was a music video by Pink, a commercial songwriter and performer. Should someone like Pink be motivated mainly by a need for self-expression? Do you think she is? Should she leave her audience out of her calculations? Do you think she does?
J’aime cette conversation!
I put forth the idea that there is a difference between art and design. Art is any creative expression. Art conveys emotions and abstract ideas. Design is the creation of useful things. They aren’t mutually exclusive. A pop song is both, especially if it is commercial and highly engineered. Considering your audience makes for good design.
Can’t complete my ideas now, even though I feel some things are off- have to go study for midterms! :/
I’m not saying pop music is false by any means and I’m not saying that art created with an audience in mind is necessarily false. What I’m trying to say (and may not have said well) is that if music or any other form of art lacks emotional honesty in inflection or content, then I don’t consider it as powerful as art where it is clear to the person taking in the art that the artist understands the emotion in and content of the piece on a profoundly deep level. Not necessarily a profound level clear to the listener or observer but art where you feel that the artist knows exactly what the piece means, if that makes sense. I was attempting to say that music created for the express purpose of giving the target audience exactly what they want to hear from a marketing standpoint is not as inherently honest as art created for the sake of creation. Sorry I was unclear.
My two cents, for what they’re worth (since I can’t resist a conversation about art — using the term generically for purposes of this comment, except where specified).
Personally, I find that creating art for a specific audience is an extremely powerful and artistically satisfying experience. It taps into creative wells that I cannot reach on my own. (Let me clarify that my definition of audience should not be confused in any way with a marketing demographic or other abstract entity.) For me, art is all about love, about expressing the eighty bazillion shades of love, — including my passionate love for the art media themselves.
Somehow this discussion reminds me of an incident from my late teens or early twenties. A minister acquaintance invited me to sing at his church. As I looked out into the congregation, I noticed the sign-language interpreter, something I hadn’t encountered before as a performer. I watched her in fascination, and found myself enunciating more clearly so she could follow. Around the same time I was investigating visual arts exhibits designed for people who can’t see. I said, “this sounds like the ideal career path for me: singing for the deaf and painting for the blind.”
But those audiences also unplugged my ears and opened my eyes.
How does one paint for the blind?
That is a very good point that makes sense. I’d say however, that “pop” music doesn’t have a specific audience but a general one; the younger half of the American public, which is quite general.
Also, does the musician chose what genera their music is represented as, or do the marketers? If the marketers choose than it’s not being written with a target audience in mind and therefore…..
Doesn’t that also apply to “L’Hayim” from Fiddler on the Roof?
I didn’t hear it as “drinking will solve your problems” I heard it as “celebrate who you are around people who will appreciate and understand you” also “it doesn’t matter what everyone else wants you to be and bothers you about, be yourself anyway.”, but that could be my bias as it is a song about gay rights dedicated by the artist to the “It Gets Better” project in the wake of the october suicides.
That really could just be my bias. Heck knows I only like the song “firework” because it’s dedicated to it gets better as well.
I refer to Firework as “Katy Perry on a good day”, and Raise Your Glass as “Pink(or P!nk, if you want) on a good day.”
firework is dedicated to it gets better? that’s good but katy perry is definitely some kind of hypocrite, i can’t even get into how horrible “i kissed a girl and i liked it” is for perceptions of bisexuality…and also the fact that she complained about gaga’s alejandro video being blasphemous when actually there is SO much more of a case against repression in that video…it’s just UGH i mean i know that doesn’t invalidate the good that is dedicating her song to it gets better but…ugh
lol studying! art history keeps reminding me of this so I might as well get it down.
Katy Perry is kinda strange with the religious and sexual stuff.
I saw Will Cotton give a talk about his art, and he spoke about working with her on her album cover (he painted the Teenage Dream cover). Apparently she’s very driven and focused, etc., especially about her image, and she was in makeup for some crazy amount of time, like 4 hours. So Cotton was surprised, as his usual models just show up and sit down, but he thought she really had a handle on the sexual image thing.
He was also brought in as art director for the “California Gurls” video, and said that there were many things he couldn’t take credit for, and would not want to take credit for (I’m guessing whipped cream). So there are forces pushing for sexually charged imagery, possibly herself. It doesn’t seem like she puts much thought into the background of what she’s pushing though, just the superficiality of it (so it’ more design than art). I think she grew up hardcore Christian, but was married in a Hindu ceremony- it seems like she’s good with images but not so much with meaning.
Interestingly enough, Jay-Z seems to posses more aptitude with both form and content than Perry, and he’s more often demonized. oh hey racism.
haha, on second thought his themes do run counter to mainstream culture and religion. but I still hold that race is a big factor.
I know what you mean. I find Katy Perry and her music generally annoying, also, “I kissed a girl” was really popular when I was questioning and strongly in the closet and everyone was singing it and I was thinking “Please, I do NOT want to think about or deal with this right now, please…..curses.”
I find it interesting that we’re discussing a pop song that actually never explicitly mentions alcohol (for all we know that glass could be filled with soda. The song’s more about toasting than drinking) as inappropriate when there are pop songs that make explicit references to sex, drugs, and drinking that we aren’t discussing.
Here are a few quotes from my parents:
“The only reason he won American Idol is because the Republicans voted for him! They don’t ever vote for the talented people! It’s just part of that anti-elitist attitude. They don’t want the good people to win because they hate people who are better than them at anything.”
“Really? Republicans still support George Bush? Well, I guess that makes sense. They do have pretty short memories, after all.”
“I don’t understand why a Republican congressional minority should hold the whole country hostage on laws! It’s just not well-run government!”
“I don’t understand why the Democratic congressional minority isn’t being more stubborn and stopping these laws from passing! It’s just not good government!”
All of these quotes are direct. I wish they weren’t. But they are.
So I guess I’m asking for help. How do I deal with people convinced that Republicans and Tea Partiers are a different species? An evil species? Because I know why Congress can’t get anything done, why this nation is so divided, why people refer to the red America and the blue America and not the United States of America. It’s because of people like my mom and dad.
Re: Everyone who responded to my comment about the Pink song:
Sorry for not looking at the lyrics very closely before I started this topic. I misunderstood the song. However, I think that many recent Top 40 songs do normalize excessive consumption of alcohol. I believe this is harmful, because they are so heavily geared toward teenagers. Ironically, I’ll quote the Black-Eyed Peas here: “Kids wanna act like what they see in the cinema show.”
I’m thinking of pop-rap crossovers here such as “Blame It,” “Tik Tok,” “Bottoms Up,” “I’ve Gotta Feeling,” and others. In my opinion, these aren’t meant to be art. They’re meant to climb the charts and sell the album, with, probably, better songs on it, of the artist that created the song. I think that these pop artists probably don’t consider how their songs will affect the people that listen to them – beyond the usual.
I’m sure that we are all aware of the harmful effects of alcohol. I feel as though most popular music doesn’t show that side. I guess I just wish that pop singers would think about it a little bit before creating these standards and non-information that can affect society.
By the way, Clare, I never suggested that I wanted to make these songs unavailable to other people. I just think media like this needs to be thought about first.
Oh, I never thought you did. My post was more of a tangent to the topic, a place the perspective you were representing can and has gone in some cases and I’m sort of anti-censorship. That had nothing to do with you or your opinion, and I’m sorry it seemed that way. Should have clarified!
It’s okay
I don’t know if this is the prime thread for the following discussion, but I can’t think of a better one.
As I talked about on the random thread, there was a shooting at another school in my city earlier today.
For me, this has reawakened a dilemma I’ve pondered numerous times in the past.
Is a person somehow required to have or feign an emotional response to tragedy? I myself am rarely saddened by things that happen to other people, even if I know how horrible the events were. I simply don’t have a personal emotional connection to such things; it’s how my personality works.
So I ask: am I unjustified? As I see it, not everyone is emotionally moved by events that happen to other people. Everyone has a different response to a stimulus; why is one response deemed “insensitive” or “disgusting” while another response is labeled “correct”? I think politeness is to be expected. But people shouldn’t be expected to cry or say how much they’re going to pray for X or refrain from telling jokes for a week after a tragic event.
After a tragedy, there are numerous ways to respond. One could act in what seems to be the most common way, expressing a heartfelt sympathy to those affected. One could feign this sympathy for whatever motive. One could do nothing. Or one could, as I am, be torn in a personal moral question.
One person died due to the shooting in my city. I feel no sadness for her death; are my emotions “wrong”? Is there a “correct” emotion? Is there someone whose death I am required to be saddened by? Personally, I’m more affected by the assassination of the governor of Punjab, Salmaan Taseer, than by this other death. But that death was halfway around the world. Does geographical separation diminish expected sympathy? It apparently does.
So why is it I’m expected to mourn for local deaths but ignore faraway ones? And how exactly should I respond to local deaths, if there is a “correct” and an “incorrect” manner to do so?
I’m just rambling here, and this is all quite disorganized. I apologize; I’ll clarify any point that is unclear.
Basically, is one required to respond a tragedy in a certain manner, and is responding in another manner immoral or unjust?
While I find your lack of empathy a little sad, it’s not inherently wrong. You’re entitled to your own emotions. What I didn’t like was how you tried to “spark” discussions in a way that seemed almost to be caricaturing other status messages reacting to the tragedy. There may be a need for such a discussion, but the timing probably isn’t best when the grief is authentic and raw for the other people around you. It just provokes an antagonistic reaction, as you probably noticed, and isn’t constructive for anybody.
As for the difference in sympathy to local deaths and faraway ones, there can of course be a difference on a personal level. The assassination in Pakistan was awful, and it’s not “wrong” to feel more saddened by it and its implications than another death in your immediate community. I think what you’re missing, though, is that other people in your community are mourning her loss, and people from your community make up a large number of your connections on that site.. Even if you’re not mourning, it’s reasonable to assume a large number of people who see your status message will be in a state of grief, shocked by the death of an innocent (who they may even have known) and astonished that it could happen so close to home. While the local death might not be “more important” than the one in Pakistan on a global scale, I’m sure it’s quite important to a lot of others and especially those close to the crisis. Frankly, your posts came off as a little insensitive to the grief of those who you knew would read it.
You also seem to present expressing sympathy and being torn up moral dilemma as either/or options. What’s wrong with both? “RIP Salmaan Taseer and [local person]. My prayers are with the people of both affected communities” or something similar would have been away to express your personal sadness at the governor’s death but acknowledge the bereavement for the local person’s death as well. Then, at a better time when the shock isn’t so fresh, you can try to have a discussion like we’re having now.
[I’m really sorry to rush the end of this post, but I really should be leaving for school. I’ll post more later if I remember what I was going to say.]
My discussions on MB and elsewhere on the internet are two different things. If you want to discuss what I did elsewhere, do so elsewhere. On MB, please stick to what I’ve said on MB. I have made no references to most of what you’re talking about. If you have some personal qualm, we can discuss it privately; here is not the place. I posted on MuseBlog to discuss what I wrote in my original post. You’re just criticizing me for something that is unrelated to what I’ve said here on MuseBlog.
I believe the majority of Cat’s Meow’s post was about what you said on MuseBlog. Besides the status and the other website part, it was all relevant.
Piggy: Is a person somehow required to have or feign an emotional response to tragedy? I myself am rarely saddened by things that happen to other people, even if I know how horrible the events were. I simply don’t have a personal emotional connection to such things; it’s how my personality works.
Cat’s meow: While I find your lack of empathy a little sad, it’s not inherently wrong. You’re entitled to your own emotions.
Piggy: Personally, I’m more affected by the assassination of the governor of Punjab, Salmaan Taseer, than by this other death. But that death was halfway around the world. Does geographical separation diminish expected sympathy? It apparently does.
Cat’s Meow: As for the difference in sympathy to local deaths and faraway ones, there can of course be a difference on a personal level. The assassination in Pakistan was awful, and it’s not “wrong†to feel more saddened by it and its implications than another death in your immediate community.
So even if portions of Cat’s Meow’s post were un-MuseBlog-related (for lack of a better word [or an existent one]) a lot of it was response to your previous post. And your reply was defensive and somewhat rude. Cat’s Meow’s post wasn’t really that critical anyway. And if you wanted to discuss this, en’s post was perfect for that. But instead, you jumped on Cat’s Meow for saying a few things that you did, relating to this topic, on a different website. I understand your sentiment, but still. You’re acting like Cat’s Meow accused you of murder.
Except for the last sentence on Piggy’s most recent post, which came off as a little abrupt, I don’t think he was being rude at all. Maybe he shouldn’t have jumped right in with that request, but I think, Radiant_Darkness, you’re mixing rudeness up with being authoriative and not-sugarcoating.
Also, people have attacked Piggy on another thread recently, so let’s not attack him for little reason. And I realize this sounds like an attack on Radiant_Darkness, so I apologize for that.
You’re right of course. I just felt that his objection was unjust. Not to mention factually inaccurate. Which I still believe. I mean, not to resume the brief semi-attack on Piggy, but “I have made no references to most of what you’re talking about” is not really true. And when he talked about “personal qualms,” I think it sounds, to use a word from the other attack (which probably isn’t the best move, but whatever) condescending. Like being sad was childish. The fact is, I felt kind of uncomfortable when he said he felt nothing for the girl who just died. Not to be egotistical or anything, but I find it hard to imagine not being sad over a life being lost. I guess it just struck a chord with me. Sorry, Piggy.
Where did he imply that feeling sad was childish? I read his comment as genuinely trying to puzzle out why people have such a broad range of emotional responses and why those who don’t react with a certain level of emotionality are made to feel as if they’re defective.
It wasn’t Piggy’s first post, it was his second. He said: “If you have some personal qualm, we can discuss it privately; here is not the place.” I interpreted the tone and meaning of it as saying feeling bad because somebody died was childish. I can see there are other ways of looking at it, but, again going back to the other thread, it seemed like Piggy was undervaluing Cat’s Meow’s opinion and believing his own unquestioningly. Like someone on Wikipedia who edits articles and then patrols them and changes back other people’s edits, ensuring people only get their view and not accepting or acknowledging alternate versions. The parallel might not be there, and I take the “childish” back. I apologize.
As you say, the words are open to interpretation, but I read his comment as simply saying that since her comments referred to something off-blog, it should be discussed off blog.
It wasn’t the last part, I was just giving the entire sentence. It was the part about qualms.
I was referring to the comment as a whole. I’m puzzled, though. I don’t understand why the word “qualm” would offend.
Good heavens, now you’re trying to argue against my personal conversations? I was simply telling Cat’s Meow that she and I can talk privately if need be. I must protest if you’re trying to make my interpersonal relations into a debate.
Let’s calm this discussion down now, please. Piggy did not act as if he were “accused of murder.” Hyperbole will simply raise the temperature.
Piggy asked a general question about whether his feelings were appropriate. It was a question that put him in a position of vulnerability, therefore it’s understandable he might feel a little blind-sided when it was answered by criticism of his behavior on another site.
While I’m sure Cat’s Meow’s intentions were good, perhaps she should have chosen to compose her reply at a time when she was not writing in haste, so she could have thought through her words more carefully and realized that bringing up off-blog comments to which the rest of us were not privy was ill advised.
Ah. I took to long to apologize. That post wasn’t here when I started typing. Stupid email.
I got caught in the delays, too. I didn’t see Princess_Magnolia’s comment until after I posted. So I hope it didn’t appear that I was piling on.
You’re right that I should have thought harder before deciding to bring in the other stuff beyond your original points. It was kind of a long way of saying “I don’t think anybody’s objecting to having your own emotions, it’s more the way they’re expressed that makes a difference”, and I probably could have done that without referencing the off-blog comments. Your request that discussions from elsewhere not be brought to MuseBlog (though they do shape my opinion) is also fair, and I’ll keep that in mind in the future.
Rebecca’s right that the time before I rushed off the school wasn’t the best time to hit “Comment” without completely thinking the post through. I honestly regretted not taking the extra time as soon as I did so. Waiting until after school when I didn’t have to rush would certainly have been wiser. (Lesson learned.)
On a different note, there was a relatively large article about the shooting in the main section of my local newspaper this morning. I thought it was interesting that I’d heard of it from you even before I saw it there.
Our standard policy here on MuseBlog has always been “If it happens somewhere else on the Internet, it stays somewhere else on the Internet.” As the GAPA who moderated comment 61.1, perhaps I should have snipped paragraph 1 after the second sentence. But that kind of micromanaging takes time and effort. Besides, people as smart, articulate, and basically well-meaning as MuseBloggers should be able to understand one another, shouldn’t they?
In my opinion, emotions can never (or exceedingly rarely) be “wrong.” They can be contrary to what the majority of society deems appropriate in a situation, but if the rest of society is displeased with your emotions, well, too bad for society. You’re entitled to feel what you feel.
Society places the emphasis on sadness for what is near to us exactly for that reason, I think. When something is nearby geographically, it is for many people harder-hitting emotionally. If something happens halfway across the world, many people react with sadness, but if that same thing happens in their state or town (or even country) they have, along with the sadness, more of a sense of “oh my god. Oh my god, this can actually happen in my life. It could have been my school. I could have been friends with the person that died.” (or whatever the situation is in that case). For example, when the tsunami occured in the Pacific in 2004, there were collections, media attention, etc., but when Katrina hit less than a year later the reaction was far more intense. (Or at least that was my perception as a fifth and sixth grader.)
Basically, proximity increases the awareness of the reality of a situation for a lot of people.
That’s a knee-jerk reaction, but logically, it makes no more sense to feel sad about something that happened a few counties over than on the other side of the planet. In truth, both are equally real, and indeed the farther-away one may have more drastic lasting impacts on more people. But emotion is emotion and can’t be forced in either direction.
One is not required to feign emotion in a situation like yours, I don’t think, but by the general rules of empathy and respect I’d say one is expected to acknowledge the validity of what others feel regarding the situation. (I feel like that could be read as a personal attack and it isn’t one. I’m not saying you aren’t acknowledging the validity of others’ emotions; I’m making a general statement here.) If everyone else feels frightened and sad after the event, and seen to want a more somber tone to daily life for a few days, then that should be respected. One sn’t have to feign that mood, but one should respect and not infringe upon (for lack of a better phrase) everyone else’s right to keep that mood.
Does this make sense? I can’t proofread because I wrote this post on my iPod, but I think I said generally what I wanted to say (although possibly in a somewhat rambling manner).
(Ah, beautiful, a reaction akin to what I’ve been trying to evoke: calm, unfettered by emotions or attacks, and thought-provoking.)
If I may slightly play devil’s advocate, I’d like to discuss further the rules of empathy/respect you addressed in your final paragraph. I quite agree. Politeness should be expected even if sympathy should not. Is this politeness necessary in both directions, then? If a person felt no sadness at a tragedy, are those who do feel sadness required to accept the emotions of that person? Or does their sadness create an exclusion to the rule–that is, they’re temporarily exempt from some rules of politeness because of their emotional state?
On another branch, is a different sort of emotion acceptable? We’ve addressed people who feel sadness and people who feel nothing. What if someone is happified by a tragedy which saddens most people around him? Is this emotion within the realm being (as you said, “exceedingly rarely”), “wrong”? Obviously a happified person should keep ens emotions to enself because of the rules of politeness. But in ens own self, is the emotion acceptable?
In theory, it’s easy to say that everyone has a right to delight in other people’s misery. In practice, however, I wouldn’t want my dentist to do it.
That reminds me of “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” a short story we read in English. It’s actually really good; you can get the full text from google.
Oh, I loved that story. I read it in sixth grade language arts class, but I’ve read it a few times since then. There’s something incredibly haunting about it.
Oh, I know! You get this wonderful Narnia-like image at first, and then it slowly starts degrading until you get to the basement part… Amazing.
And then you can’t get it out of your head for weeks and keep coming back to those images and wondering why.
Why can’t we just live in Omelas, minus the little tortured kiddy?
Yes, politeness is necessary in both directions, although not quite the same way in each direction. Because the person who does not feel sadness at a tragedy is not in an emotionally vulnerable state, it isn’t really as necessary to… I want to say “tiptoe around,” but that isn’t exactly what I mean… their emotions. People don’t need to give special consideration to a person who is feeling the same as usual. What they should give, though, is respect to the person’s right to not feel sadness surrounding the event. Those who the tragedy strongly affected might be tempted to criticize or attack the unaffected person for ens “insensitivity,” or for en not feeling the same as themselves. However, en was being respectful in return, there would hopefully not be any conflict over the emotions surrounding the issue and this problem won’t even arise.
Feeling happy when a tragedy occurs… Well, of course they have the right to feel what they want to feel; it’s hard to control feelings, especially in the moment. Whether it’s okay to feel happy though, morally, I guess depends largely on the circumstances. If the person is happy just because a person died, then that would be kind of concerning. However, if the person who died had bullied that person viciously for years, ens happiness would be much more acceptable. I imagine that happiness would still be tinged by guilt for the happiness, in most cases, and that also makes it more okay: acknowledging that the tragedy still has negative effects on people. I guess I’m saying that if the person who feels happy respects the validity of others’ sadness, then ens happiness sits better with me morally. If the person is purely gleeful at a tragedy, however, with no logic behind it besides the enjoyment of the suffering of others, that would be concerning.
I concur. For me to say more would be redundant.
I don’t think there’s any appropriate way to react to anything; morals are subjective. People are different, and you can’t tie the whole lot of us into feeling one emotion in reaction to a certain event that’s “right.” You can’t expect anyone to feel remorse for a death of a person who they didn’t know, or know anything about. Of course, I can understand why someone would feel upset at the death of another, regardless of where they live. When someone from my school died, a girl in my bio class broke out into hysterics; she never met the deceased.
As you said, politeness is always appropriate. It wouldn’t exactly be good for someone to be grinning while everyone else is crying.
As for the distance thing, when something happens close to home, it tends to have more of an effect on people, but it doesn’t mean that one is obligated to feel sadness at a death that happened in a close proximity to him.
Unless they are thinking of “nitwit,” “blubber,” “oddment,” and “tweak”.
I agree with Cat’s Meow about your lack of empathy being sad, but I can also see where you’re coming from. That is, in that people expect you to mourn a death that’s somehow distantly connected to you, where somewhere else an equally valid life was lost without anybody noticing. I was kind of young when the World Trade Center bombing happened, and at that time I honestly didn’t understand why everyone was so upset because none of us knew anyone who was killed, although now I do. But since you can’t mourn every death in the world, perhaps it makes sense that the social expectation is that you feel at least some grief that a young person was brutally slain somewhere near you.
I feel as though I’ve become desensitized to the Sept. 11 bombing over the years…Now it’s just something I accept as part of history. But when I think about it, especially the Falling Man – it is actually very sad. When I think about the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire ( 1911 ), having read so much literature about it, I find it also very tragic, not the less so because it was brought about by incompetence and inhumanity in our own country. And then I remember that it is true that conditions are still like the conditions that caused that fire elsewhere in the world…and then I want to stop thinking about it.
At the time of the attacks of 9/11, I was seven years old. I didn’t find out about what had happened until several days later. I don’t think I really understood what had happened. I was never particularly torn up about what had happened, just because I really didn’t understand it at all. Then when I was fourteen I saw footage of the events in a documentary, and I read Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (which makes me cry every time I read it), and I think I finally have a handle on how very terrible the events of that day were.
(Make sure not to say bombing)
I didn’t really understand it as a child, asking my mother if the towers fell like dominoes or one at a time. She scolded my rightfully, but I didn’t understand why. Last year or so, on 9/11, I was watching a documentary using footage of the day from various perspectives, and that’s what put it into perspective for me. It is such a fascinating thing, but everything I learn about it gives me the shivers.
I was very shocked and sad at the time, even though I was only six years old, because I’d been in the towers only a little over a month before. It was very, very high and mom pointed out all the bridges which I kept mixing up and there was a movie theater inside the one tower we were in and they showed a movie shot from a helicopter flying over the Hudson and the seats moved… and one month later it was all gone without warning. It could have happened the day I was there.
I remember my mom frantically trying to reach our relatives in the New York area to make sure everyone was okay because my godfather used to work for one of the firms that had offices in one of the towers. I sort of forgot about it after all the relief that came when we found out that no-one we knew had been killed, but I remember it vividly, as well as hearing the term “war on terror” later and being scared by it too, because I knew that in wars lots of people died and everyone was sad and hungry and buildings were broken. Of course, no one would tell my anything because it wasn’t a subject for little girls, which only worried me more. But when no more shocking accidents were forthcoming, I eventually forgot about everything and focused on that kid who cut in front of me in line to the slides.
Okay, I realize I caused a lot of confusion with the “qualms” thing. So far nobody has understood what I meant. I was referring to when Piggy said, “If you have some personal qualm, we can discuss it privately; here is not the place.†The part I was annoyed by was, “If you have some personal qualm.” I should have been clearer about that. I don’t care what Piggy does on some other site. I don’t care whether he talks with Cat’s Meow via email or whatever (a non-MuseBlog conversation). And, although I’m a bit bothered by his lack of sympathy, Piggy is entitled to his own feelings and emotions. But to me, the tone of, “If you have some personal qualm” and the overall tone of 61.1.1 was, as I said before, condescending. Kind of like he was saying, “If you are immature enough to be sad about someone’s death, I’m sorry, don’t bother me.” Before this starts another fight, I take it back, as I also said before. And as 61.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 and 61.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 show, I should have been clearer.
And Piggy — 61.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 and 61.2.1 — don’t start anything. Let’s keep it at the level of “misunderstanding.” Although to be fair, you’d be more continuing it. I declare the conflict resolved. Let’s keep it that way.
P.S. We really put the ‘hot’ in “Hot Topics” didn’t we
You’ve clarified your side, so I’ll clarify mine:
My response to Cat’s Meow was solely on the topic of the metadiscussion. I was merely trying to get across that I felt–as Rebecca put it–a little blind-sided by being reprimanded for extrabloggian actions instead of addressed in the discussion at hand here. I was, in that comment, making no reference whatsoever to the actual discussion matter. I have never–here or elsewhere–said, implied, or insinuated that sorrow or grief or any other emotion is in any way, shape, or form immature or childish. I If I have at any point seemed condescending, I sincerely apologize.
All right, I think everyone’s on the same page now. Back to the topic.
*attempts to stay on topic*
I also don’t think it’s appropriate to feign any sort of sadness, but it seems harsh not to acknowledge a tragedy like that at all.
On a different topic, some deaths affect me more deeply than others. Someone dies approximately every ten seconds(right?), and I can’t feel bad for everyone, but if someone dies who either I knew personally or much of the world knew about, it does elicit a reaction. Whether one or the other has more of an effect I’m not sure. Does that make sense?
Piggy —
I pretty much understand where you’re coming from, there was a similar type of thing in my town (that i would rather not elaborate on out of respect); ie a death that had a community-wide type of response. I think that’s pretty normal. I disagree with Cat’s Eye’s comment about lack of empathy, although it really matters what we define as “empathy”. For instance, is understanding that an event is sad and impacts others negatively, but not really feeling anything for it beyond that being empathetic? I can be cognizant of the fact that something is sad without feeling sadness myself; can I be empathetic without being disingenuous?
You are fully entitled to feel the way you feel. And I don’t blame you for it at all, to be completely honest. To me, as long as one isn’t running around making tasteless comments about the event, it’s fine. And I really doubt anyone is about to tell someone who them know to be affected by something how little it matters to them personally.
All that is required is tact. If you don’t want to say anything, you aren’t compelled to. If it comes up in conversation in which you must respond, it’s enough to remark that it’s sad and so on. Otherwise I would just not remark on it at all.
That’s the difference between empathy and sympathy. Sympathy is feeling sorry for someone; you understand they’re hurting (and hope they feel better). Empathy comes more from personal experience; you know what they’re thinking or feeling because you’ve been there (and hope they get feel better too).
I had written a post about how distance does mean less in the world today, but it wasn’t necessary. Death is scary.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
-Plato
I haven’t commented on this thing. Were you thinking of Cat’s Meow? XD
whoa! sorry, my mistake! i know you are both independent of each other but for some reason i saw the cat and assumed it was you. O_o WEIRD
*makes noises about you not being the only one*
There’s got to be some kind of witty joke I can make about how often this happens.
Witty joke—See no evil speak no evil?
(Pre-note: I use “you” as general term. Sometimes a little excessively.)
Piggy- Something happened in my community where one student at my school was killed at a car accident. I didn’t know her at all, so I wasn’t really saddened. The biggest feeling I had was more contemplating of how it could happen to someone in my class (she was a senior), which would most likely affect me more. I felt sympathy for the family going through it, but I wouldn’t say that this is something everyone has to go through. If you don’t know someone and it has absolutely no effect on you, then there isn’t always a reason to be sad. I think the important thing is to be polite always (as you have said). Here’s where I impart my own advice: A lot of people are going to be saddened by what happened, so I would never talk to people who are sad about how I don’t feel bad. I’m not saying that the genuine idea of discussing it is bad, but it does come across as rude. People will think that you’re saying that they shouldn’t feel bad either. Now, I have no idea what you’ve actually done, so I’m just being general.
Correct emotions. I don’t think there are correct emotions, but there are agreeable emotions. They apply to what each person thinks. You see, I would not understand a lack of feeling if someone close died, but I have no right to say that you have to feel bad. That kind of disregard for death would turn me off to being friends with you and maybe I wouldn’t like you because of it. Other people might not care. It has to do with each person, but I think that the general opinion would be: if someone you don’t know dies, no obligation; if someone you know/like/were close with dies, you should be sad (at least somewhat). I would probably agree with that to agree for my personal “agreeable” emotions. Some people might be turned off by someone’s rudeness, like saying to someone grieving how you don’t feel for the death. Again, not assuming that you did this.
Geography does affect sympathy to some degree (for most people). If my next door neighbor died (I don’t know my neighbors well/at all), I would be more affected than if someone told me a man in -place random foreign country here so not to seem racist- died today. Personally, my neighbor dying wouldn’t actually be that saddening, but I would say that it would impact me more than a someone foreign. This is why I think so: People die every day, and everyone knows that. People are smart enough to know that there are people dying everywhere constantly. My neighbor does not die every day, though. The odds that my neighbor is one of the people who died is shocking to me/anyone (to a degree, depending on who). This is bringing death into close view. We hear about how it happened, why it happened. We learn about it and some people around us are impacted. Maybe I could be next, I mean, the odds got them. People near you are most likely going to know the person who died, and I would have sympathy for someone grieving.
I suppose something considered “correct” would be to have sympathy for the mourning. I would feel bad for people mourning if I encountered them, but if I don’t know them then I wouldn’t expect that either.
So… how ’bout that Southern Sudan?
Dare I ask?
To briefly summarize the situation:
Sudan is a country in Eastern Africa. It was ruled by the Egyptians and the British, who carved it up without regard to more traditional tribal borders. Sudan gains independence, and is ruled by a central government. Geographic-economic divisions are exacerbated by tribal-religious allegiances. (This is a common post-colonial theme.) Southern Sudan gains a degree of autonomy from the Northern central government (in Khartoum). Oil is discovered just South of the border. Legally, profits should go to the South; but the North wants in on it. There’s a prolonged and terrible war fought. (I’m skipping over a lot here, relating to Darfur and Chad.) Peace accords are signed; there’s a vote happening right now for Southern secession. It looks like it’ll pass.
Thanks! (Though immediately after posting the question I read about it on the NYTimes website. I fail) I don’t know much, but I do think if Southern Sudan actually does secede it has the potential to improve the situation, since that implies large numbers of voters( from most of the country I think) think it’s a good idea.
This is shadowfire’s brain on tired, sorry if that didn’t make much sens.
POSOC: As always, painful.
Huck Finn having all the n-words replaced with “slaves” in a recent edition, anybody? We have a lot of spirited debate going on at my house, since Mom’s an English teacher. Is it whitewashing a part of our nation’s history? (No offensive puns OR Tom Sawyer references intended.) Is it making a previously offensive work of literature more accessible? Is it removing the intended impact of the original word as Twain meant it? Does it even matter all that much? Opinions?
Sam Clemens chose that word for a reason, and to censor it because it’s unpleasant is to put political correctness before authorial intent as well as historical reality.
It’s ridiculous. Mark Twain wrote it that way, and changing it takes the whole idea out of historical context. By this apparent reasoning, all other possibly offensive matter ought to be deleted from all books, like the Holocaust or Apartheid.
My opinion was, would you have Atticus condemned for being an African-American lover? Would you see Holden try in vain to scrub all the “darn you”s off the walls of his little sister’s school? Would you cut out the part of Romeo and Juliet where they have sex? How about the part of Of Mice and Men where they Curly’s wife tries to seduce Lenny? The parts of All Quiet on the Western Front where they describe the blood and guts in such loving detail? (*shudder*)
I would rather not live in a world where all the sharp edges are cut off, or a society of safety and forgetting about our past. People may be able to replace all the n-words in Huck Finn, but they can’t replace the n-words in the real world.
To me, a lot of the power of that book is how Huck manages to overcome his bigoted upbringing, the culture all around him that says that dark-skinned people aren’t human, and be able to form such a friendship with Jim that he decides to go to Hell for him. It’s about how someone with every possible disadvantage in life can still grow into a good human being. And to me, the n-word is necessary to portray exactly what kind of society Huck’s coming from, and the pervasiveness of bigotry in his everyday life.
I think it would be okay to remove the n-word in an edition specifically for young children to read, but only there.
What age would you consider young children? Would it be better to try to keep the concepts involved in the n-word from them as long as possible (i.e. racism, bigotry, etc)? If so, how should they be presented and where? Should young children be reading it in the first place, especially if you don’t consider them mature enough to be exposed to the real thing? Tom Sawyer is a much more suitable book for young kids..
Young children, if young enough not to be able to handle the language, SHOULD NOT BE READING THE BOOK. For some unknown reason in our society “classics” get lumped with children’s books, which makes no sense. Huck Finn was not written for children, nor was Tom Sawyer, nor was Oliver Twist or Robinson Crusoe, for that matter.
um. since when has our society encouraged young children to read “classics?”
my experience with the public school system and with society in general (besides my parents and museblog) is that children actually tend to be discouraged from reading anything remotely difficult for their age. granted, i moved at a faster pace and was a lot more motivated than most of my classmates (and learned to read earlier on my own) but i remember the process of learning to read in school being agonizingly slow. it took the school system a few years to bring people up to the point i’d gotten by reading on my own, and i’m not vain enough to assume that’s because i’m some sort of genius child. it’s because i had exposure to more challenging material and made a concerted effort to understand it.
there is a point to be made that young children shouldn’t be exposed to this kind of language or violence or whatever, but how young is “young?” i feel like a lot of the time children are ridiculously sheltered in terms of reading material
and yes there are the parents who are against all that stuff on TV and in games and movies as well. but there are plenty who allow it to happen or there wouldn’t be so much controversy
the only arguments you hear about violence and language and explicit content in books are whether things are appropriate to be taught in school.
and yes this has devolved into a rant about how nobody appreciates reading any more *rattles cane* but my original point still stands, there’s no reason children (of a certain age, true, but an age much younger than most people seem to think) can’t read classic literature.
All AP and APP literature classes beginning in 3rd grade (through 5th) in the state of Washington revolve (in my experience) around the “classics”—Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, and others who’s names I don’t recall. Whenever I walked into a school library or even asked my mother for a book to read these were the books I was steered to. “I read this when I was a lot older than you but you’ll love it.”
Don’t get me wrong. I did love a lot of those books and most were age appropriate for me when I read them. I am in no way discouraging reading such books at a young age.
HOWEVER, just as most first time acting 5th graders can’t perform shakespeare in a way that furthers their acting abilities and is fun for both them and the audiences (or even necessarily appropriate, Shakespeare can get a bit risque and while it’s one thing to read at that age but it’s another to act), a lot of classics cannot be handled in a way that encourages an enjoyment of reading, remains true to the text, and is academically worthwhile at a young age. Huck Finn is one such book. I read and in-depth analyzed it in 8th grade and that was about perfect for me, I could have done it in 7th but definitely not in 6th. The reason that some adults push for Shakespeare performances and classics read at young ages has more to do with them feeling like their child is especially intelligent because these were accomplished prior to their neighbor’s children, which is petty and obnoxious and not good for kids who are still at an age where if reading and acting aren’t a whole lot of fun they will never be attempted again. I’ve met multiple people where this is the case.
… what kind of young children read Mark Twain? Except, that is, for me?
They used to. I think most kids my age did.
Did the use of the n-word bother you at all?
If it was used in modern literature, yeah, I wouldn’t like it, but it’s Mark Twain. It’s historically accurate, and makes it easier to understand the times they were living in.
I don’t ever support censorship. Don’t like it, don’t read it. Other people deserve the option.
shadowfire:
As far as I’m concerned, the reality of slavery is a lot more shocking than any word.
But I don’t think that either one bothered me much when I first read Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn. It was like reading science-fiction: 1840s Missouri was a different world, and of course strange things happened there.
Later, when I found out that my great-great-grandfather had lived in that part of Missouri at the time the books describe, it began to hit closer to home. And later still, while doing family-history research, I discovered that some of my ancestors in the South had left their children slaves (along with horses and furniture) in their wills. That was an eye-opener. Seeing original documents written by your own flesh and blood makes history more than theoretically interesting, and impossible to ignore.
shadowfire (again):
What about adaptations? When I was in elementary school, I loved my Big Golden Book version of the Iliad and the Odyssey. I also loved my children’s edition of Gulliver’s Travels. And I read comic-book versions of some of Mark Twain’s books and Shakespeare’s plays before I read the originals. All of those left out big parts of the “real” versions, and in some cases (especially Gulliver’s visit to Brobdingnag) they were clearly censored. Would I have been better off if those editions had been unavailable to me?
Another question: Is it really censorship if unexpurgated versions continue to be readily available?
(I’m not arguing one way or the other, just saying that things aren’t always 100% clear.)
If “unexpurgated” versions are still available, no, it’s not censorship, and yes, banning those “expurgated” versions would actually be censorship. I’d never tell people they’re forbidden to make or read these versions. But just as I can’t deprive them of their right to make the books, they can’t deprive me of my right to sit in my corner, twiddling my thumbs and going “It’s not going to wo-ork” smugly.
I agree. And I would like to add that availability plays a big role. If only the new version is being taught (which I don’t think is right, but well, that’s me) and the old version isn’t easily available the next generation of Mark Twain readers will have thought they’ve read Twain when actually they’ve only read the “cleaned” version. The language makes a difference to the emotional effect of the story, especially for me, and so to mess with it messes with the message of the book.
No, I think you should have the option of reading any version of the books. But if only one is taught and/or available to the general population, that is censorship and I don’t think that should be encouraged. (Why do I keep posting on this thread at this time? I’m not fully awake)
I think if you’re mature enough to read and comprehend Tom Sawyer you ought to be mature enough to understand the contextual use of the *hates to do this* [n-word] and not find it offensive.
Re: Huckleberry Finn
The whole issue is really annoying me because I wrote an essay (the best essay I’ve ever written) last year about how Huck Finn should be taught and a lot of my argument was that reading it gives a viewpoint of a fairly horrible yet important chapter in American history where humanity is included. Allow me to elaborate. In a text book, (most textbooks) you read about slavery existing and racism being prevalent, yet in Huck Finn characters you get to know and love, such as Aunt Sally, good charcters who mean well for Huck, are slave owners, whereas in a textbook slave owners are easily passed off quite simply as “evil” in interpretation of the book. Furthermore we see in Huck Finn we see how prevalent racism is in that society, and how difficult it is for an individual to rid themselves of prejudices so ingrained in their society. The rather ugly truth is that in the time period in which Huck Finn was set, the n-word was not considered offensive and was commonplace. Just because we take it way, just because we try to ignore it, does not mean it wasn’t there.
This summary really butchers my essay, (I have no time) so I feel sort of bad posting this, but you know…..
Ooh, I have my own issues with the teaching of American history in American schools. You know, just once I’d like to be in a history class where they DON’T go, “America invented democracy, America invented freedom, the British were evil tea-drinkers who were oppressing the poor Americans, all the Founding Fathers were in total agreement about everything and all of them were always right about everything, every single white person in the South owned a kajillion slaves and kicked puppies, every single German was an evil Nazi, Japanese internment camps? what? what are you talking about?” *sighs*
That’s a good point you bring up. Huck Finn is one of the closest things we can get to an actual first-person account of life at that time, and it very closely captures the zeitgeist of the antebellum South. Someday I want to do that for our time period, but I think The Social Network may have beaten me to it. Ah well. There will be more of our stories to tell.
Oh, I so hate the way history is taught in America. Not once during our entire fifth-grade study of WWII did anyone mention that the US imprisoned thousands of Japanese Americans in prison camps. And you’ll notice that any Civil War video skates over the atrocities commited by the North. Since I now live in an ex-Commonwealth country, we get a lot of history from the British angle, which frankly is a lot more open.
What I really hate, though, is when people say, “I want you to form your own opinions about this,” and then pretty much tell you what to think. I agree with the standpoints they teach us, but if they’re not going to offer a choice they shouldn’t pretend to. Like you’ll hear testimonies from Pol Pot’s victims, but not government officers at the time.
It must be tricky to decide how much history to teach primary-school classes. Do fifth graders in Singapore learn about the Sook Ching massacre?
As for Pol Pot, I suspect it would be hard to find any former Khmer Rouge officers willing to talk about what they did in Democratic Kampuchea in the mid-1970s.
We learn about the Sook Ching massacre- although that was done by the Japanese, which our teacher used to emphasize the All WWII Japanese Soldiers Were Evil concept.
Actually, our sixth grade teacher (I seem to be learning much of the sixth grade curriculum over again this year) found a whole video of their trials, which was pretty interesting.
And the thing about America being innovative in democracy, was that it wasn’t!
I learned, in Cartoon History Of The Universe no less, that the Netherlands had attempted a pure democracy/ republic that had rebelled from a big country with lots of colonies… Spain.
And I’ve actually learned many more things from CHOTU than my history textbook. For example, was Haiti ever mentioned during talk about Napoleon?
*rambles*
Not to mention the Athenian democracy, so called because it was invented by, uh, Athens. And the Swiss villages that practiced a fairly pure form of democracy, too, from which Jean-Jacques Rosseau derived his ideas about basic human nature, i.e., that humans are basically nice people all ’round.
And Choklit, I couldn’t agree more. The best history teacher I ever had was the only history teacher I’ve ever had who seemed to really understand the Civil War. She saw slavery as a symptom of a gigantic cultural rift between the North and the South, which had been foreshadowed for about fifty years if you look back at it. The South was a culture focused on agriculture and tradition, which was shown in their unwillingness to give up the idea of slavery that had been part of their lives for generations, and the fact that they needed so many slaves at all (to pick cotton, since with the cotton gin plus the Industrial Revolution cotton was suddenly a very hot commodity). The North was a culture that didn’t have that farming tradition, since it’s the North and the land sucks. So they developed a more industrialized culture, focused on trade and progress. (The West was busy roping buffalo.) The North was also more populated, giving them an advantage in the House of Representatives.
With the expansion of the United States under the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican-American War, plus a healthy helping of Manifest Destiny, the North and the South couldn’t stop arguing over who got the new states, since the South was terrified that the old ways of life would be destroyed and the North didn’t want more states to have slaves, since slavery is a horrible thing, after all. They fought like two parents getting a divorce fighting over the kids, and it wasn’t pretty. But eventually the North was winning the new states, the South knew the new House and Senate would abolish slavery, and they got out while they still could. The North saw this as a sign that the whole country was collapsing and went to go get the South. Cue war.
But in most classes, all they tell you is “So after the Mexican-American war, we had another war! Totally unrelated! It was the Civil War and it was the North coming in to rescue all the slaves from the horrible Southerners! Yay, North! Go memorize the names of these battles now, they’re the most important part of the whole thing.” No wonder kids get bored with history. No one ever tells it so it’s as interesting as it was.
Uh, wow, long post. Candy if you read the whole thing. Maybe I’ll do an SSSS of it or something.
History is certainly more exciting when you understand the processes that drove it, instead of just memorizing dates of kings and wars.
Your version of the Civil War is a caricature, of course. In the first half of the 19th century, there were plenty of farms in the northern states and the Midwest. What the North didn’t have was plantations. Plantations were what really made slavery profitable (and slaveholders rich). In the South, the big ones were concentrated mostly in South Carolina and in the relatively new Deep South states acquired in the Louisiana Purchase. In some other places, slaves were less important to the economy — and as a result, people were less enthusiastic about secession. For example, eastern Tennessee was a hotbed of pro-Union sentiment, and the Confederate army had to occupy it to keep people from rebelling against the Confederacy.
Also, I don’t think it’s just that people were “terrified that the old ways of life would be destroyed.” White southerners were terrified of the slaves and afraid that if they freed the slaves, they would be destroyed. Many southerners admitted that slavery was immoral but thought that maintaining it was a matter of life and death for them.
Everything you just said was probably what we were taught (this was two years ago, so only the caricature version stuck in my head.) The point, of course, is that Southerners who had slaves didn’t have them because they were omgevul, but because their economy was based around slavery. And yeah, now that you say so, I recall a rebellion by some slave (Nathaniel something, I think) that made many slaveowners afraid that their slaves would do the same, causing them to crack down far more harshly and make conditions far worser for slaves as a result.
Most slaveowners didn’t actually own that many slaves, right? Most only had two or three? Of course, the picture in the head that doesn’t fade away is Scarlett O’Hara, trying to save her family’s plantation and bring back the old glory days when they had all that money and all those slaves.
Dates are boring. People are fun.
Enc – Yes, in my history textbook Haiti was mentioned in the section about the Louisiana Purchase.
That was my 8th grade history class. No, really. We didn’t learn too much in the way of facts (my teacher was very big on ~culture~) but we absolutely had a multifaceted curriculum. I remember doing a project on what was wrong with the traditional Columbus story and spending a couple of days learning about the Japanese-American internment camps (which I knew some about anyway, my dad writes about legal history surrounding that event), among other things.
SFTDP. Also, we had a Constitutional Convention at which we debated as different groups (poor farmers, slaves, plantation owners–I don’t remember this debate very well so wouldn’t be able to provide details) and learned about/debated the Palenstinian/Israeli conflict after reading a lot of articles and book excerpts for both sides.
Actually, we also read Common Sense and the Monroe Doctrine (or at least very sizeable chunks of each) that year… Hm. Wow. That was a good class.
You know, at my high school, history classes are taught in this order: world history (aka “everywhere that’s not Europe or America”) as freshmen, European history as sophomores, and American history as juniors. I didn’t understand the course order myself, but when I think about your point, it makes more sense. Everything in American history begins with the rest of the world, obviously, but I bet it’s easier to avoid teaching such an American-centric point of view when you get the Netherlands and British constitutionalism and all of that before delving into our own origins.
As a side note, I could definitely live without hearing another French joke EVER AGAIN. Today, courtesy of the boys in my AP Euro class:
Teacher: In the years leading up to the French Revolution, the French government was spending 50% of their budget on interest payments, 25% on the army…[she finishes talking about the slide]
A Boy: Mrs. C? Why did the French spend 25% on their army? How can it cost that much when all they do is surrender every time?
Same thing happened in my history class yesterday, and I’m not even taking the same type of history as you. O.o (They don’t offer AP histories for sophomores at my school, only Modern World History.) Except mine was more like:
Teacher: So, can anyone think of a good propaganda slogan that, say, the French government might have used to recruit people to the army?
Boy: Come on, guys, maybe we won’t lose too badly this time!
Other boy: Who feels like surrendering today?
Third boy: I want to fight ze Germans… but I am le tired. How about a baguette instead?
Me: *facepalm*
Our school teaches in this order:
6th grade: Ancient History (Neolithic -> Rome)
7th grade: World geography (The modern world. All of it)
8th grade: World History (Fall of Rome -> Renaissance + Pre-imperialist Asia)
9th grade: Modern World History (Englightenment -> Cold War/ as far as out teacher can get before the year ends)
10th grade: American History (Not looking forward to this)
11th grade: American History II OR APEuro. Certainly APEuro, if I can get into it.
We have it like this:
4th grade: state history. (California history is kind of awesome, actually.)
5th grade: American history, from the Native Americans to the Constitution.
6th grade: Ancient history, from Neolithic to Rome. A covering of the ancient civilizations like China and Egypt.
7th grade: Medieval history, focusing on Europe but stopping by China and the Middle East and such
8th grade: American history, from the Native Americans to Reconstruction.
9th grade: No history class required, but World Cultures is an option, which I took.
10th grade: Modern world history, from the Enlightenment to the Cold War.
11th grade: either U.S. History or AP U.S. History, from the Native Americans to the Cold War.
12th grade: either no history at all or AP Euro. No idea what they learn in there, but it sounds awesome.
I was homeschooled for middle school, and as our school is very small and more than one grade takes classes together, the order of classes tends to switch every four years, with the new incoming class.
In middle school I basically read whatever i wanted to. I remember taking a college level textbook on the history of Britain and actually getting a few chapters in before my Mom took it away for her class. I also had lots of Geography and got into the State level of the National Geography Bee. So I don’t think I was quite exposed to the whole whitewashing of history concept, though when I came back to high school I certainly noticed the difference between what I’d been taught in 5th grade vs 10th.
9th: US Government. school I went to.
10th: American history
11th: World Cultures
12th: AP Comparative Government
We had only a half year of US government, and we barely covered anything. Most of what I know of US government comes form studying on my own or the Junior Statesman of America summer school, where I took AP US Government and US Foreign Policy.
Our American history and World cultures teacher was awesome and we did talk about the whitewashing of history and the distortion of current events too and things like that in her class.happened at JSA, too, which says something about the difference between college courses and high school courses.
I didn’t need to take AP Comparative government, because I already had 3 social studies credits, but I did anyhow. Like the other classes at my school, we did discuss bias in history textbooks and in our own textbook. (Our textbook made it seem like compared to America, every other government in the world sucked, even relatively close ones like Britain. And the author kept offering hints on how to Americanize them. Yeah, it was bad.)
Ah… my school does basically only european history, following the standard curriculum, though some grade schools do the history of Vienna. My teacher was rather overzealous, so if you tell me the name of a Hapsburg I can tell you when they ruled and what they were famous for.
6th grade: Neolithic to the fall of the Roman Empire
7th grade: Romans to WW1
8th grade: WW1 to now
–
In high school, the subject is renamed history and political education and the focus is on the regimes etc.* Austrian history is also covered in *sigh* a little too much detail for my taste. Also, the whole curriculum gets put on hold to cover any current local (or european) elections (voting age 16, so this is actually a good idea). We’re supposed to do important ones in other countries too, but the curriculum is too crammed for that.
Sophomore year (3x per week)- First civilizations to Industrialization
Junior year (2x)- Imperialism to as far as the teacher gets
Senior year (2x)- finishing up + Austrian/European politics for the last century
*for instance, we learned about the American revolution and discussed the constitution, but then headed back to Europe. Same with Japan’s industrialization.
I wouldn’t say that the entirety of schools in America are so ethnocentric. In 4th and fifth grade, we vaguely learned about America, and I honestly don’t remember that much. In sixth grade, we did ancient histories (Oh, that was a fun class. Spent half the year reading Greek Mythology). In seventh and eighth grade students normally take American history, but I went straight to 9th grade history after seventh. I have to say, it really falls on the teacher whether or not the class is taught completely about America. In seventh grade, we learned about internment camps and badly treated mental patients in America (also, about Colombus. That is one thing I don’t like, in elementary school Colombus seemed like a great guy and we have a holiday for him, but it just was disappointment when we learned the less pleasant things). Back to ninth grade…. Every kid spends two years on world history, and I take AP World now. We don’t even go into America (focus on latin american colonies in the early modern age, not north america). I have to say, between this year and last year, we’ve been taught a lot about how cultures aren’t better than the other, how colonists did horrible things to Native Americans, how basically Europe stole some of its best ideas to a degree(printing press, gunpowder, heliocentric model, not that it’s bad that they got these things, but that schools say europe came up with these things.) Next year I take one year of US history and then whatever I want. I’m just trying to say that it’s how the teacher is teaching, not America.
I’m not sure about history curricula in my city. I think we follow state MCAS frameworks. Like Fishy, I remember learning ancients in sixth. We did Africa in seventh ( apartheid era ) and genocides and US history in eighth. I’m in US History 1 now.
My textbook seems to be fairly objective. In one part that I recently read it said that some slave owners had “grave misgivings” about owning slaves. It also presents other viewpoints that people had at the time of the events, in the form of primary quotations or diary entries, at the beginning of the chapter. However, it did not say that Jefferson’s trade embargo was widely criticized.
Did anyone else have an entire year dedicated to state history? That was fourth grade for me. We had to learn about all the missions and even visited one, which was fun, but of course there’s never any mention of the enslavement of native americans for the missions. except for the ever present tiny sidebar mention “oh yeah conditions were awful…ANYWAY”
Third grade was “native american cultures” for a bit. Yeah, right :/
Query, MB: If you could structure historical education, how would you do it?
I think there is a lot of difficulty in the elementary school set, because on the one hand you want to make sure everyone has a basic understanding of general history, but on the other hand such huge omissions can almost seem revisionist :/ but how do you gauge how much should be taught?
I think a lot more attention should be payed to giving a world outlook, seeing history as a cohesive whole. Concepts of interrelation. I didn’t have any sense of that at all until we started on Imperialism in AP Euro. Once you do, I think history is far more interesting…Certainly always teaching from an American perspective is extremely flawed. And a lot of it is the teacher, as previously mentioned.
And of course there’s the matter of Young Earth types and people who refuse to accept evolution, and things do go back to censorship and omission. And then everything is just based on standards and test scores…sigh
Or everyone just reads a Cartoon History of the World. Possibly preferable to any other method.
Fourth grade is state history for everyone, I think.
I actually don’t have much of an idea of how to structure historical education, possibly because so much of my own education was unstructured. I wish every child had this desire to learn history and read any and all history books in any order just because that stuff is cool, but sadly I don’t think that’s likely to happen.
I do think history classes should have lots of discussion and talking about history and people and gory details though. It doesn’t need to be covered in the textbook, but talking about interesting things help people remember the boring things.
It was even state history for me and I’m in another school system on another continent.
We did Massachusetts history in third grade. According to my memory, we didn’t do any history at all in fourth grade.
I moved from California to Washington in January of fourth grade. At my school in California, they mostly taught state history at the end of the year. (Complete with a gold rush day, which I’d been looking forward to for forever and missed /sob. Though I did get to visit a mission.) At my school in Washington, state history was taught at the very start of the year. So, I got neither! Yay!
Luckily, I read enough to generally make up for that misfortune of timing.
Yeah, we also did CA missions in fourth grade, and yes, they neglected to mention the rounding up and forced baptizing of hundreds of children.
I’d make the Cartoon History and A Short History of Nearly Everything my textbooks, and people would surf Wikipedia and write an article of historical fiction for everything we studied.
I would have lots and lots of attention paid to the foreshadowing, because everything is totally foreshadowed and that’s one of the most interesting parts. I would do away with the concept of units, because history is a cohesive whole and you can’t split it up into a Revolutionary War unit and then a Creation of the Constitution unit and such. I would rely heavily on first-hand sources, as much as I can manage. I would do research to find out all the ridiculously awesome, horrible, gory, funny, heartbreaking, or heartwarming details and make sure they’re in my lectures. And there would be roleplaying. Lots and lots of roleplaying. And debates, with cookies for the winners. And simulations. Lots of those, too.
What does everybody think about the unrest in Egypt, Tunisia, and other parts of the Middle East?